It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Quotes of Elected officials Saying they want to repeal the second amendment.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:13 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Please just give me one quote any quote of Hitler saying he wanted to kill 11 million Jews if that was their goal there should be plenty of quotes


P. S. People's actions speak much louder than their quotes everything liberals have done for the last 30 years has pointed towards them wanting to get rid of all guns so yes it is their goal to get rid of all guns out of the hands of the civilian population
edit on 7-10-2017 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:53 AM
a reply to: Masterjaden

AKA: “no one has ever said they wanted to ban all the guns, but I still wanna believe it because Sean hannity told me too!!”

Lol...just lol..

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:56 AM
a reply to: seasonal

What does that have to do with anything????

The OP asks for quotes of democrats saying they want to repeal the 2cond, ban all guns or start a confiscation program..

And not one person has been able to provide a single one..

The primary propaganda point for republicans, and not one elected democrat has ever said they wanted to..

I have no idea how y’all buy that garbage..

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:01 AM
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Because it was specified in the question she was asked...

Why do you think the videos author edited it out?!?!

For full disclosure??? Lol

No it was to pretend she was talking about a total gun ban and confiscation..

So they could better peddle the lie that has been oh so profitable..

The chic asks “doesn’t the bill still leave bunches of assault rifles in circulation due to the grandfather clause??”

And Fienstien says “if I had had the 51 votes to have the American people turn them all in. I would have.... “

Which someone trying to play people edited out.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 09:30 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Hillary agreeing and thinking that Australia's confiscation of firearms is a good idea is a text book example.

Lead a horse to water.....

edit on 8-10-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 09:46 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox


I know you're just carrying on all these arguments to try to substantiate your belief that we would be better off in this country with more laws about guns, gun control, etc.

However, I'd like to try to point out to you once more why this is, in the United States at least, a moot topic.

There is no other country (with the exception of Mexico and Guatemala in a restricted way) that acknowledges the right to carry.

This right is on equal standing with freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and association, right to a jury trial, to habeas corpus, due process and equal protection of the laws.

Right to carry a firearm is FUNDAMENTAL to the United States. Said another way the United States is UNIQUE in the world in this regard.

The right to carry (to "bear arms") is fundamental in English Common law.

Further the right to carry in the US is the only one of our acknowledged rights that the further empowerment SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is attached to.

It is more than obvious that the Founders, every State that ratified the Constitution, and everyone who has ever sworn to protect it and live under its protections have agreed with this fundamental right.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:56 PM
a reply to: seasonal

Another words, “I know she didn’t say a confiscation and a ban, but I know what she really means..”


Again super, super weak sauce..

And even weaker since appearently that is your best example..

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 01:33 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

I never said anything resembling that they should ban guns nor start a confiscation..

1) I just said that a lot of the normal arguments used are laughable..

There is definitely a list of reasons not banning guns. It’s just that these are not on that list..

A) it’s to protect against a tyrannical government..

Well that ship sailed the second we let the military get FAR too powerful for hand held fire arms to combat..

For that to make sense we would have to have roughly equal weaponry.. and random idiots running around with RPG’s and pocket nukes is something almost no one would want..

B) “they would just use something else” or “it’s not the person it is the gun”.

If that is the case why do we restrict anything?? “They could just find another way..” , “it’s not the weapon it is the person..”

We don’t apply that same logic to ANYTHING else..

I’m not even remotely anti-gun.. I am anti propaganda ment to dupe people .

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in