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.

 

Why is it okay for the Left to Suggest Repealing the 2nd but its not Okay to suggest Muslim Ban?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ShawnTBear

originally posted by: notsure1
No

just a few of Obama lies


4 pages of lies through his admin. Trump has 4 pages and he isn't even in his first year.


Thats just the 4 pages on that link. The point is they all lie




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Stephen20

A) The “ left” is not a single institution that can make a statement...

B) I bet you couldn’t find one quote from an elected official saying they would like to repeal the 2cond amendment...

Because it would be POLITICAL SUICIDE!!!


C) no law enforcement body would be willing to do a ban or confiscation. Cops wouldn’t...the military wouldn’t..

No one would..


It is a BS scare tactic and deflection the conservative types have constantly used..

The only thing that has EVER BEEN PROPOSED has been a ban on the NEW SALE of assault rifles..

Everything else is a slippery slope argument against something no one is saying.. or atleast no one with ANY power.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Here is a nice juicy recent YUUGE lie from Trump.



Trump Tax Plan Benefits Wealthy, Including Trump




The tax plan that the Trump administration outlined on Wednesday is a potentially huge windfall for the wealthiest Americans. It would not directly benefit the bottom third of the population. As for the middle class, the benefits appear to be modest



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Phage

"People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!"

Donald Trump.


So who’s lying?


still Trump.

he called it one thing, then another, then another.

that's literally lying 101... unless he put "Muslims " in speech marks on his notes... i guess we'll never know.


“I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion," Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press." "I'm looking now at territory. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I'm OK with that, because I'm talking territory instead of Muslim."

July 2016



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Heard a person give talk on a psychological trap built into Islam. Don't know Islam but have seen sych trap in Christianity so know such exists.

The one he described is that to get to heaven you have to do lots of religious acts each day. If you convert, you must make up for all the days before you converted. If you convert at age 66 that is a lot to make up!! It is impossible, in fact, so you are doomed to some version of hell.

Unless.... Well there is a way to atone for all the teligious acts you missed, but you're not gonna like it. You have to kill non-believers (and ideally get killed while doing it). Then you go to some version of heaven, all atoned for.

Like said, I don't know squat about Islam...maybe someone can comment whether this psychol trap exists or not. The guy seemed/claimed to be an expert.

IF is true, would suggest a motive for acts like thism



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1
No

just a few of Obama lies


Wow I just read through most of that link and have to come to the conclusion that Obama was as full of shi as Trump. Wow



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Ban all Trump supporters from buying and owning guns.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Stephen20 :

No amount of Gun Control would have prevented this attack as he got everything LEGALLY AND FOLLOWED ALL LAWS ON THE BOOKS. ALL GUN CONTROL DOES IS MAKE MORE VICTIMS.


Okay Stephen, please provide us all with some genuine and credible source material that shows without doubt that gun control made more victims?

I am also willing to give you a little leeway and accept that you you were merely stating an opinion.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Two different things. Apples and oranges.

There are legitimate arguments for both. As to the 2nd amendment - ask the mountain of corpses generated by guns in the US what they think.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I haven't heard nor read of a single person suggesting the the 2nd Amendment be repealed. Maybe I missed something. I've heard opposition to silencers becoming legal. I've heard of plenty of talk about banning bump stocks. Mostly though I hear the question of how do we keep guns out of the hands of people like Stephen Paddock.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Stephen20

I am a lefty, done properly. I am neither rich nor powerful, I work hard for little reward, and suffer all the problems caused by capitalism without really seeing overmuch of the benefit from it, in fact, see less and less year on year, under Conservative control of the country in which I live.

In short, I am not centre right dressed up as something else, as are many alleged lefties, ESPECIALLY in America (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to name a pair).

I believe it is wrong to suggest either banning weapons in America, or banning Muslims, although for different reasons, and believe that you cannot establish any kind of genuine equivalency between these things, save from to reference the fact that both these things represent a violation of one or another aspect of the Constitution in some way, shape or form.

But they are significantly different situations, because one of these suggestions regards banning a thing, and things are no where near as important as people, regardless of what the physical thing happens to be. Knives, guns, sporks, plastic packaging, marshmallows, these are mere things and have, regardless of their importance relative to other objects, next to no importance when compared with human beings. Banning guns would be wrong because it violates the constitution, and I would definitely not support that in the least, even in light of what has been happening in the states over the last few years.

But banning actual people, just because of their religious beliefs, is a MUCH more serious violation, not just in terms of the constitution, with respect to freedom of religious conviction, but also a complete abandonment of lessons learned about morality during the Second World War. Simply put, any nation which had a hand in fighting that war, ending the reign of the Nazi party, should be fundamentally incapable of practicing anything even remotely like a ban on travel from a country, with the intention of reducing the numbers of Muslims or any other religious sect, being able to gain access.

That being said, the right to defend oneself and possess the tools to do so is fundamental. You should have that right, and it should not be abridged, modified, challenged or changed to reduce the effectiveness of what you may possess for that purpose. I am a lefty, and if you think that means "Gun grabbing liberals blah blah blah, yak yak yak" then you are welcome to think that, and be fantastically wrong about it if you wish. But realistically speaking, liberally minded persons have more to gain by being able to possess the necessary equipment for their defence and defence of their country. To my mind, being left wing means a dedication to humanitarian principle, a love for ones people, a determination to see them protected both from the government and criminal elements besides, both by way of ensuring the people have more power than the government, that they, not corporations, own and control the government, but also in the immediate sense.

For example. I am a massive lefty. I live in a very Conservative area of the UK. When there is trouble in the street, it is rarely my Tory neighbours rushing out to see what the fuss is. Muggins here is the one who steps up, every time, because in Britain, the Tory mindset does not often come with any understanding of the responsibility a citizen has toward his fellows. They believe themselves to be islands unto themselves, that as long as they are ok, the rest can go hang. They think that merely paying their taxes, mowing their lawns, and drinking enough gin to sink the Bismark is enough. I do not. My home, you see, is not my abode, not my street, not my voting district. It begins at the Northern most tip of Scotland, and ends at the Southern most point of England. Its all my home, and I believe that I have responsibilities toward every other person in my country, no matter who they are, where they are from or what their religious beliefs or genetic or ethnic origins are. Those responsibilities include the same protective instinct I show toward anyone else, the same determination that any method the Tory government uses to damage them is deflected and turned against the government, the same determination that those who seek to threaten their lives are doomed to failure, in short, the desire to uphold my neighbours, my countrymen, against anything that threatens their peace.

Now, I do not, as it stands, have the freedom necessary to carry a tool for the defence of my life, or anyone elses. But, a little while back, a friend of mine who works at a warehousing firm which deals with boardgames and such, went to the States to organise a shipment of stock. After their working days were done, he and his team would be taken by a company rep local to the area they were working in, to a bar for a few after work beverages. While they were sat around their table, discussing this and that, this rep turns to my friend and asks:

"So...you have no real gun freedoms in the UK, right? How does that work when you get mugged, or someone breaks into your house?"

My friend grinned, looked the rep flat in the eye, and replied:

"Its pretty simple really...we just beat 'em to death."

And he is absolutely right. See, the mentality is there. We have the instinct to ensure that no one gets away with inflicting unacceptable circumstances on one another, but we lack the tools, have to use our fists and feet to do work better done with a blade or a bullet. It does put the victim at a disadvantage, and I do not believe that this is just or proper, but the law is what it is, and to violate it comes with prison terms so severe that you would lose more freedom than you would gain, by carrying tools for personal defence here.

I, as a lefty from the UK, know this to be wrong. I cannot accept that it is correct that a little old lady on the street should not, if she be capable of doing so, empty out the brain pan of the awful bastard that tries to rob her of her pension money. I cannot accept that it is correct, that if confronted by a knife wielding mugger, I cannot draw steel and engage him without being at risk of prosecution over carriage of a blade for my personal defence and defence of the community (I would not carry a gun personally, even if it were legal. Blades are quiet, never run out of ammunition, and are harder to do collateral damage with). But since it is currently not lawful to carry items for personal and community defence, I have to make do with my body itself as the only tool I have to perform this task with, but I still perform the task when necessary.

I would not wish that situation on my friends across the pond in America, in the least. I also wish that, having the freedom to carry these arms, which, let us remember, was given in order that the government could not become too big for its boots, my friends across the pond would concentrate more on establishing precisely what circumstances have to actually be in evidence in the US, before one has a responsibility to use ones second amendment for what it is ACTUALLY for, aside from the mere defence of ones home from burglary, or ones life from common thieves and degenerate murderers. Theres more to it than that, and properly defining what is and is not a reason to take ones government to task, and then acting on it, might be wise.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: ShawnTBear

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Please cite that law.


Glad you asked,

Obama's Law, he once again skirted the formalities of democracy for something to become the law of the land with his magic progressive invisible pen, pushed with community organizer finesse.


However, in 2010 President Obama’s Department of Justice, which was headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, found that the use of a bump-stock “did not violate federal law.”


Source


You said


There once was a Democrat who signed into law the legality of owning bump stocks......his name is Obama.


But his admin did not sign anything into law.


He put the Obama seal of approval on bumpstocks, stuck it in the mailbox and sent it out to the nation. The resulting policy was hoping someone someday would spray bullets using them during a crime, get them old anti gun juices flowing in the land.


OR they were looking at the actual wording of the law and determined that they couldn't act against bumptstocks given the language of the law.

They couldn't legally do anything about bumpstocks if they were legal - only Congress could do that.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ShawnTBear
Hmm..how many people have radical Muslims killed compared to how many deaths caused by someone with a gun?



In the world?

Since 1400 A.D.?

Lots and they use guns too.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Stephen20

Who on the left has suggest repealing the 2nd exactly? Name some names. Otherwise please exit your soapbox, because I don't want to hear your strawman anymore.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
It's too bad someone didn't remind the shooter that Mandalay Bay is a 'gun-free' zone.
edit on 6-10-2017 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Ban all Trump supporters from buying and owning guns.


I knew it.

Sooner or later, I'd have to become a criminal.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No, it's what our president said he wanted to do while he was building his base.

Oh, and after he was elected.


I guess that makes it true.

Unless he was lying.


In the video he does not call for a Muslim ban.

He calls for a temporary halt to Muslims entering the country until representatives of govt can figure out "what the hell is going on".
There is no mention of Muslims already in America and no mention of any restriction on the Muslim faith.

So he was calling for, at best to support your argument, a temporary ban on Muslim immigration.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Stephen20

ok, just a couple things.

I have not heard anyone calling for a repeal of the 2nd amendment at all.

You state that any control or restrictions wouldn't have worked because he purchased everything legally. That argument would be nullified by making things like bumpstocks illegal. I also find it difficult to believe that you think the security guard with a gun would have changed anything after being fired at by 200 rounds of ammunition.

And as far as the left/right argument. I've heard the right say over and over again how the problem is mental health and should be approached through that avenue. If that's what you truly believe then let me point you to this little gem.

House Joint Resolution 40



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

you put too much effort into another stemagegod troll account and thread.
next week, same topic worded differently, new user name.!




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join