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.

 

Dems stage sit-in on House floor to push for gun vote

page: 18
62
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's not. Look I think it's far too late to implement but the words well regulated do mean something. Were the framers Fascists?


That term applys to the MILITIA. Which under Federal law is split into the organized and the Unorganized.

Organized referrers to Natinal Gaurd
Unorganized refers to all other males 17-45. (sorry ladies, didn't write the law
)
www.gpo.gov...

BUT you also have that pesky comma in there. In that period that was a separator of ideas. IE the second part of the Amendment does not hinge on the first part and is a completely separate concept.




posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Excellent along with these,

#OccupyWahhhh

#I'mImportantLawObidingCitizensaren't

#MypaycheckdependsondoingwhatthePricksInPowertellmetodo



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
For those that DO care.



Over just the past five years, lawmakers have introduced more than 100 gun control proposals in Congress, since Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were shot in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011.


Why more than 100 gun control proposals in Congress since 2011 have failed

Let that sink in for a moment people.

The funny thing about this is...

These law makers and lap dogs are Despised by most of the People paying them to 'do their job' and instead, their trying to turn America on it's head and take their rights away. This is going to seriously implode soon.

OVER 100 gun control proposals since 2011.

OVER 100 EPIC FAILS.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   

edit on 6/23/2016 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Konduit
Don't these politicians realize that they are trying to infringe on a constitutional right which they swore oaths to protect? These people should all be kicked out of office IMO.


They know exactly what they are doing, and they don't care.

They are TRAITORS to the republic.


Surely congress people in the pocket of the NRA are the traitors to the people, but I guess that's ok because they are your kind of traitor aren't they?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: neo96

Thats not true. You can use the amendment process to change specific functions of the bill of rights. You can make amendments that supersede prior ones .


Is that so?

Then people can take womens right to vote away, and make AA's slaves again if they wanted.

Of course NEITHER of those are in the BILL of RIGHTS.


I will have to give luthier the point on this one.

Yes we COULD change any of the Bill of Rights if we so choose to. An Amendment can change any thing in the Constitution.

Seeing as we have only added 16 Amendments (and two of those delt with Prohibition.) The chances of doing it are very slim.

Yes I know there have been 17 sense 1789, BUT there were originally 12 amendments on the Bill of Rights. Only 10 were ratified. Ironically the 27th Amendment was the 12th on the Bill of Rights. It was finally ratified in 1992 making it the 27th. But technology it IS part of the orginal Bill of Rights. So that means there are 11 Amendments as part of the Bill of Rights.

Number 12 is still out there also and COULD be ratified, but deals with apportioning Congress to make sure it was not TO SMALL to function.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

There were 4 bills I believe and 2 were Dem bills and 2 were Rep bills and it went along party lines. They act like spoiled little brats. Pass my bill its a Dem bill
..........pass my bill its a Rep bill. Both parties could of compromised. The spoiled little f#ck!ng brats need to grow the FL#!K UP!





posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Didn't the republicans propose a bill that would of protected due process and was a compromise? IMO the bill (by the Senator from Texas) made it seem like it was a compromise by not letting people on the list buy a gun which is what Democrats wanted but also protected due process.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Leave it to democrats to whitewash an act of war into yet another excuse to strip away the rights of law abiding citizens along with helping the enemy by disarming everyone so they cant fight back .

 


Mod Note: Do not change political party names.



edit on 6/23/2016 by eriktheawful because: Removed political party name change.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Didn't the republicans propose a bill that would of protected due process and was a compromise? IMO the bill (by the Senator from Texas) made it seem like it was a compromise by not letting people on the list buy a gun which is what Democrats wanted but also protected due process.


It was actually an amendment to the Dems own proposal, but yes, the GOP did attempt to offer a middle ground compromise. I thought it still had serious flaws with regards to due process, BUT the fact that the Dems voted against it even though it mostly did what they wanted should tell you everything you need to know about what kind of childish games the Democrats are playing with it now.
edit on 23-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Didn't the republicans propose a bill that would of protected due process and was a compromise? IMO the bill (by the Senator from Texas) made it seem like it was a compromise by not letting people on the list buy a gun which is what Democrats wanted but also protected due process.


It was actually an amendment to the Dems own proposal, but yes, the GOP did attempt to offer a middle ground compromise. I thought it still had serious flaws with regards to due process, BUT the fact that the Dems voted against it even though it mostly did what they wanted should tell you everything you need to know about what kind of childish games the Democrats are playing with it now.

Astute observation.



Later the Dems will tell everyone how the Republicans are the party of NO that will not compromise!
edit on b000000302016-06-23T07:02:22-05:0007America/ChicagoThu, 23 Jun 2016 07:02:22 -0500700000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Leave it to dumbocraps to whitewash an act of war into yet another excuse to strip away the rights of law abiding citizens along with helping the enemy by disarming everyone so they cant fight back .


Well, the Muslims are a major new voting bloc for them, and you know, power is everything. It doesn't matter what they want, or might do, or the changes this might cause, as long as it generates votes, because votes are power, and power is all that counts.

That's why you're hearing ridiculous crap like 'due process is getting in the way', because what it's getting in the way of, is more votes.

What's going to be funny is, the LGBT voting bloc is only about 4-6% of the US, so Muslims are a much larger group. And thus they're going to have to give that one some thought. Is it better to toss the gays under the bus to get the Muslims?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Well, the Dems again put on a show:
A show of level of morality of the Dems - check
A show of the average mental age of a Dem Congress person (4 year old) - check
Makin a**es out of themselves for not going through the rest of the business at hand - check
A serious lack of understanding or regard for the Constitution - check
BAU



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Of course they will try again. They are trying to do a coup detat on the United States. The silent secret invasion through infiltration.

People you better wake up, because it is clear where this is going.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

And ironically, the gays haven't figured that out yet, just like the blacks haven't figured out that they're being tossed for the Latinos (including the illegals who are taking their jobs and worker status in the Democrat voter/victim hierarchy).

Just look at the thread about gays doing a die-in against Trump.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kali74



a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government


www.merriam-webster.com...

A democrat sit in until they get their way.

Even after a DEMOCRATIC VOTE.


Let them Strave.
Just my Opinion



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity




No one's infringing.

I beg to differ and submit these as proof.
NFA 1934 (how is a poll tax illegal, but the taxes on Constitutionally protected items in this Act are legal???)
GCA 1968



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

I think it's unlikely as well. Unless gun owners make stupid arguements and don't put forth solutions causing the violence. I think we have made it too much about personally having firearms. When debating the other side its something they can't relate with most of the time. However don't take me suggesting the call a constitutional conference as saying I approve it. Just saying that's the only way to legally do that and they have the right to try and persuade the public (since they ran on gun control platforms and were elected). I disagree completely with the propositions but I respect there right to propose things I don't agree with. Even to look stupid protesting.

I think we should focus on the practicality (or lack of) the gun control proposals and how they avoid dealing with issues of poverty and law enforcement corruption which has led to gangs embedding themselves in politics and bussiness as well as corrupting law enforcement.

How the boarders being porous allow more illegal guns to go back and forth. Or how any bad person can walk right into the country. How the education system has failed kids ability for critical thinking and in some case the schools resemble the prisons that half the kids will end up in.

I think focusing on my guns doest away peoples opinion or allow for the same dialogues about what the concerns which are very real actually are.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   


If at first you don't succeed. Try,try,try,try,try again.

And what is one symptom of insanity ? Trying something over and over again , expecting different results.
Hmmm.Food for thought,



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

When somebody blames one side or the other, both sides have you duped. 10 minutes before they sat down on the floor to protest, both sides signed more money for guns overseas.

With nary a peep from either side or the complicit Media.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join