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.

 

Should the President of the U.S. be Able to Buy a Gun?

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Being under FBI scrutiny isn't the same as being on the No Fly List. So this whole thread is a non sequitur.


I bet that one is under FBI scrutiny before being placed on a No Fly list.

It doesn't matter. The line is No Fly No Buy. Being under FBI investigation is irrelevant.


That line is an advertisement, it's not even the law, if it even will be. And you are well aware that the point here is the reason for the FBI investigation. It has to do with Treason. We're not even talking about drug running or tax fraud here.

SO WHAT? There is no PERSON saying that people under FBI investigation shouldn't be able to buy guns. It is a strawman to say there is. Then to talk about criminal investigations (regardless how severe you think the charges may or may not be) like they impact being able to buy a gun is a non sequitur. This whole thread is a mess of illogic.
edit on 21-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Being under FBI scrutiny isn't the same as being on the No Fly List. So this whole thread is a non sequitur.


I bet that one is under FBI scrutiny before being placed on a No Fly list.

It doesn't matter. The line is No Fly No Buy. Being under FBI investigation is irrelevant.


Well you can't be put on some NAZI secret list without due process or at least you shouldn't be put on one and then have your Constitutional rights stripped from you. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard and this is supposed to me a free country? Right.




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

According to the left, due process should be suspended and anyone on a list or under investigation should not be able to buy a gun.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I'm not arguing about the merits of the "No Fly No Buy" idea. I'm just pointing out the OP and the people who support is logic's logical fallacies. But for the record I think it is a vast compromise of due process for a list with poor federal oversight and quality control. So I don't and won't support that idea until they at the very least increase the federal oversight for who gets on and taken off the list.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Being under FBI scrutiny isn't the same as being on the No Fly List. So this whole thread is a non sequitur.


I bet that one is under FBI scrutiny before being placed on a No Fly list.

It doesn't matter. The line is No Fly No Buy. Being under FBI investigation is irrelevant.


That line is an advertisement, it's not even the law, if it even will be. And you are well aware that the point here is the reason for the FBI investigation. It has to do with Treason. We're not even talking about drug running or tax fraud here.

SO WHAT? There is no PERSON saying that people under FBI investigation shouldn't be able to buy guns. It is a strawman to say there is. Then to talk about criminal investigations (regardless how severe you think the charges may or may not be) like they impact being able to buy a gun is a non sequitur. This whole thread is a mess of illogic.


You need to go back to the OP.

No one is trying to say anything like that, you're right. You just conjured the straw man. The point is that Hillary has no leverage at all to even speak concerning these things until she is pulled out from the Cauldron of boiling water into which she placed herself.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta
I see that you are doubling down on the terrible logic in this thread... Here's the OP and the line of illogic (strawman):


Hillary Clinton: Those Under FBI Scrutiny ‘Shouldn’t Be Able to Just Go Buy a Gun’

That is just PLAINLY not true as I've already pointed out. I'm not sure how you have the gall to accuse ME of creating a strawman when it is plain as day in the OP?

Maybe YOU should go back to the OP. You clearly aren't clued in on all the facts of what is being discussed.

edit on 21-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Hillary Clinton: Those Under FBI Scrutiny ‘Shouldn’t Be Able to Just Go Buy a Gun’ ...she doesn't need to, her hired body guard has the gun(s).
The rich and powerful don't dick around with carrying guns...they have people that do that...it is the working man, the middle class business man and the poor slum tenant that need protection and guns to enforce protection. Bad guys do not prey on the rich...what's got into you all?
Cheers



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are not getting at all the point of anything said. You apparently didn't see Hillary's tweet. And you're ignoring the message of the OP, and creating your own straw man to derail the intent of the message.

Twice I've told you plainly the purpose of the OP. You are ignoring it.

You can't defeat the argument until you acknowledge Hillary's hypocrisy and justify it.
edit on 6/21/2016 by TarzanBeta because: Grammar



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
He asks about due process...not so much of an answer





posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta
Why should I address the OP when it is built on a foundation of logical fallacies? You can't argue away these fallacies. You know damn well that you are currently taking Hillary's words out of context. Regardless of the outcome of her wishes, she would qualify to own a gun BECAUSE when she refers to people "as being investigated by the FBI" in this case she is referring to the terrorist watch list. This has been clarified MANY times already and to play dumb about it is just seriously dishonest.

So no, I'm not going to answer the ridiculous trap premise in the thread, because there is no point to doing so. It isn't a realistic question because Hillary isn't hypocritical. I know it really grinds your gears as a biased conservative, but Hillary isn't on the terrorist watch list.
edit on 21-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yah, but she's a member of the gubment, exempt form the laws of the land. You can tell by looking at the license plates of the cars they drive around in.

What the "E" stands for...



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Only relevant when they want it to be. Did you know that the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was not on the no fly list or the terrorist watch list?

A little "oversight"? I think not. I think it was allowed.


The biggest terrorist in the world lives among us and is probably about to take the highest seat of power in this country. Anyone voting for that treasonous P.O.S. is a traitor to this country along with her.

They say 'know your enemy' , well Hillary sure lives by that statement being that she knows the law well as she is a lawyer. Same goes for Obama knowing his enemy very well...he is a constitutional lawyer.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

A great clip.

It's all about due process.

A right that the leftists would see eliminated.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Only relevant when they want it to be. Did you know that the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was not on the no fly list or the terrorist watch list?

A little "oversight"? I think not. I think it was allowed.


Yes he was. He was on it for a year then removed.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If Hillary is charged how she should be charged and found guilty, that would mean she is a traitor.

If she is found to be a traitor, based upon what information we have been allowed to access, it will be because she was either indirectly or directly complicit in disasters plotted by terrorists.

Therefore she would be found to at the very least be an accomplice, whether wittingly or unwittingly, to terrorists.

Therefore, do you believe that the accomplice of a terrorist should have access to fire arms? And in relation to the thread title - should someone who has been investigated for these crimes be eligible to be the Commander in Chief? After all, they investigated Omar atleast twice, and though he was found without fault, the very fact that he was found without fault twice before may be the very reason why he wasn't investigated further.

After passing lie detector tests, people may tend to feel more secure in committing the crimes from which they've been pre-exonerated. This you can learn by watching Jerry, Maury, Wilkos, etc... to further clarify, not saying anyone here was given a lie detector test, but investigations are obviously designed to learn the truth.

Is this clarified enough for you?
edit on 6/21/2016 by TarzanBeta because: Spelling

edit on 6/21/2016 by TarzanBeta because: Eta



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Only relevant when they want it to be. Did you know that the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was not on the no fly list or the terrorist watch list?

A little "oversight"? I think not. I think it was allowed.


Yes he was. He was on it for a year then removed.


Right he was removed...which made him....no longer on the lists....which made him not on the lists.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Maybe ask the people of Libya if they feel she is a terrorist ?? But no doubt their opinions don't matter. It is not as if they were better off than most of Europe before she joked and laughed about successfully having their leader murdered.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If Hillary is charged how she should be charged and found guilty, that would mean she is a traitor.

IF! IF she was charged. She isn't charged yet, so this line or reasoning is irrelevant until it actually happens. Plus it has nothing to do with being put on a terrorist watch list.
edit on 21-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Only relevant when they want it to be. Did you know that the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was not on the no fly list or the terrorist watch list?

A little "oversight"? I think not. I think it was allowed.


Yes he was. He was on it for a year then removed.


Right he was removed...which made him....no longer on the lists....which made him not on the lists.

Yes, which shows that even putting him on the watch list wouldn't have prevented him from buying a gun which means that the "No Fly No Buy" solution wouldn't have stopped him from purchasing a gun. But that isn't the topic of discussion you brought up in the OP is it? That is just a tangent point that admittedly DOES require it's own line of investigation (one I've even authored a thread on), but it is irrelevant to your OP.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If Hillary is charged how she should be charged and found guilty, that would mean she is a traitor.

IF! IF she was charged. She isn't charged yet, so this line or reasoning is irrelevant until it actually happens.


Not irrelevant. It is not necessary to be charged to be placed on a No Fly list, but she encourages the idea that anyone on the list have their rights stripped.

Therefore, not only relevant, but by your very argument it is made all the more relevant.
edit on 6/21/2016 by TarzanBeta because: Phone...




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join