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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. Senate Ready to Vote on Gun Bans

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
What part of this vote bans guns?


The part where we give an inch today and discover they took miles down the road.

NO! No more "compromise" period. Someone fears firearms, tough SNIP, get over and STFU or move to another country that has whatever it is you're looking for. The era of giving so much as a rat's ass hair worth of compromise on this issue must end and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED must be unmolested as our standing law.




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's a feature not a bug. Who cares if they can tell the difference when the end goal looks pretty much the same?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
I just bought another Armalite AR-15 it will be worth a fortune on November 2 if Hillary get elected.
The same fortune all your guns were supposed to be worth after Obama came after them?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Denial of due process rights to American citizens.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for not infringing on the second. Double digit gun owner here.
I was just pointing out that this doesn't ban guns as the title says, it makes it way to easy to ban people from buying guns. You are unfit to buy weapons!



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

Heck, some of us don't own guns and see the problem with it.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I dunno... due process? You know there's white Christians on that watch list right? This is how we ended up with the Patriot Act. SMFH

ETA: None of these bills will pass by the way.
edit on 6/20/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor

originally posted by: MrSpad
God forbid we delay somebody suspected of being a terrorist from buying a gun for 3 days.


Yeah, I can see it now.

Gun dealer: 'sorry, you're gun sale is delayed for 3 days due to you being a suspected terrorist.'

Terrorist: 'Thanks for the heads up!'



If it works like the regular lists, they only hassle you and they aren't actually supposed to tell you why. That makes it hard to find out you are on a list so you can go through the process to get yourself removed if you are on there for crap reasons. I am also assuming you have to fight through the process at your personal expense too.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I don't think anyone plans on taking your weapons.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Vote on requiring background checks at gun shows ..........

(procedural vote)

Motion Fails



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Snarl

I dunno... due process? You know there's white Christians on that watch list right? This is how we ended up with the Patriot Act. SMFH

ETA: None of these bills will pass by the way.


But that's the point, there are plenty of people of all kinds on that list who landed there for a list of strange reasons. I know. My husband is on one for stupid reasons that don't relate at all to his race, ethnicity, religion, or politics (so far as we know). They relate to how he signs his name, how much debt he has, and the necessities of his profession. Inasmuch as those are concerned, any person of any ethnicity, religion, or political leaning could be tagged in the same manner ... for being a person who went to college to carry on a professional career.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

There's quite a lot of planning in that regard. It's a tough row to hoe however. Things must happen incrimentally.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: projectvxn

I don't think anyone plans on taking your weapons.


Yes they do.

They've expressed a lot of interest in confiscation schemes.

The 2013 AWB would have made it illegal to possess most kinds of semi-automatic firearms. Including handguns.

You constantly hear about the Australian system, which was a confiscatory policy, being hailed by the likes of Obama and Clinton.

They want to ban guns and they want to take guns. I'm not fooled into believing otherwise when their own words remove any doubt.

So again, don't care what laws they pass, they can't have my guns. Ever.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The point I am making is they are only emotionally invested in the issue which should not be the basis for law making.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Any new laws if passed, should not be passed at all if they infringe on the right to due process. Due process is the only thing keeping us remotely hopeful of keeping our liberties.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Perhaps people would be more willing to support these laws if your president wasn't such a condescending asshole, with a track record of saying TEA Party supporters, anyone who questioned his nationality, anyone who questioned his religious faith, anyone who owns rebel flag items, climate change skeptics, Constitutionalists, capitalists, and in a staggering display of idiocy veterans "fit the profile of domestic terrorists." When one is so awe inspiringly dumb as to paint anyone who disagrees with him as a "potential terrorist," then one can't logically expect wide ranging support for restriction of rights based on suspicion of terroristic intentions.

Sweet Christ, January 20, 2017 can't get here soon enough...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
One bites the dust: the amendment for 'universal background checks' has failed. Current vote is 44 in favor, 56 against. I suppose that means that at least a couple of Democrats voted with the Republicans on this, given that there are only 54 Republican senators. I suppose we can call it a bipartisan effort to defeat this one.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Vote on requiring background checks at gun shows ..........

(procedural vote)

Motion Fails



Yay!
Good Guys- 1
Asses of Evil- 0



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

They definitely don't want us veterans armed.

God forbid they let the people most prepared to F them up have guns.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Armed veterans would add a major wrinkle to their backup plan of assigning crowd control to UN peacekeepers should the peasants finally get tired of this horsecrap and rise up.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join