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.

 

Donald Trump Says, 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'

page: 19
48
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

the Government wont nuke itself to stop a civil war. the military itself would split as well. Along those who follow tyrannical orders and those who do not. Drones that use heat have a weakness. its called thermal blankets that shield heat from detection. If it was so easy to beat people with them then Afghanistan would already be westernized.




posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The funniest thing is people still think Trump has an ironclad plan. I firmly believes he makes up most of it as he goes. I think much of what he spouts off is only to appease whatever group he is addressing. Mostly because of lack of experience - being a politician, regardless of whatever negative connotations are aligned with it, does require experience to do properly, and Trump had none.

He'll offend his own supporters again before all is said and done.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
More details on this story in the OP by Tucker Carlson. And boy does he let Trump have it.
It looks like it is betrayal.
Think very hard on this one both liberals and trumpsters. If Trump disarms you. You have no way of defending yourself now. This is what you wanted no?
"Imagine if OBAMA Had Said That!" Tucker Keeps it 100 on Trump's Meeting



Hello new world order. As expected.
edit on nd2018000000Fridaynd000000Fri, 02 Mar 2018 14:01:11 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoFri, 02 Mar 2018 14:01:11 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Can't decide which bothers me more:

-- a President who off-handedly says he'd be willing to abrogate several fundamental rights of a U.S. Citizen, or

-- A President who's engaged in all the "response" meetings about the Parkland shooting, and seems to completely miss the fact that there were no "due process" rights to be violated in the first place; the fundamental problem is that the chump was never charged or arrested for any of the multiple arrestable offenses he committed - how the **** can you think you're solving the problem when you don't even know the basic facts of what went wrong???

Had he been arrested, had he been charged, he could have adjudicated by a judge as "delinquent" which would have landed him on NICS. Had that happened, he'd have not been able to buy a gun, and could probably have had some mental health intervention.

Add to it the moronic tariffs on steel and aluminum and Trump's had a terrible week - and he doesn't even know it - he thinks he's winning.

Also, I'm sure this was already posted somewhere, but just in case: www.realclearinvestigations.com...

edit on 2-3-2018 by squittles because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Lmao, you're ridiculous! Simply talking about changing background checks, gun shows, online buying, etc... means they are going to take your guns away?!?!?!

Fox is mainstream republican propaganda. Tucker is just a well-spoken puppet.

If they wanted to take your guns, they would have already (under Obama). They would not have waited till congress is filled with NRA - toting republicans.

It's just pathetic now. Nobody can debate changing laws because you guys are so mind controlled by the people who want to sell you guns and survival supplies. Then you guys pretend to be anti-mainstream (while listening to fox) and be against the NWO while playing right into corrupt politician's tactics.

You are not into conspiracy and corruption, you are into your own political TEAM. Stop pretending to care about conspiracy when you sip fox's kool-aid and just repeat tired NRA talking points.


edit on 2-3-2018 by blueman12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

Think he might have pissed off the "right" bunch the wrong way this time...


Like I've said over the last year, his supporters were fine with Trump's apparent disregard of rights of citizens.. if it wasn't rights they cared about. But I knew for a certainty at some point, Trump would blunder to take away something his sheep actually care about (because he is fairly clueless and making it up as he goes), and then.. THEN they would suddenly realize the type of guy he was.

Don't worry - he'll do it again. He waffled on so many issues coming up to the Presidency, he is bound to anger his followers again. If he does that, there will be no chance at reelection.


Just curious, which rights of citizens did he so casually dismiss before? I hear people talk as though the concentration camps have opened for business, but no one can ever actually point to anything.

In this case, in one sentence, he managed to suggest he'd be okay with violating not one, not two, but three separate Constitutional amendments.

You know, the only thing he's actually *required* to do in his oath is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And in that sentence, he's publicly violated his oath, by failing to support and defend the 2nd, 5th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution.




edit on 2-3-2018 by squittles because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: conspiracy nut

Because then a mere unproven allegation could be used to stifle an inalienable right.

Shall not be infringed.

For any reason. Full stop


You can either punish someone after a crime is committed, or arm yourself and stop them from committing it. We don't have thought-crime/pre-crime minority report BS here. Not now not ever
edit on 3/2/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I'm a follower of the late Neil Knox, who was a 2nd Amendment firebrand. But Neil also told about the irregular Militia, as being separate from the Regulars. IN 1922, all of our State's regular militias were permanently federalized into the Nat'l Guards. Then the Feds promised to train and equip the irregular militias of the several States. They have welched on this completely.
However, grabbing guns off of mental cases, can be seen positively as supporting the irregular militias. Nikolas Cruz would never have made it in any group of Patriots working as a militia. He should have been nailed earlier, but Obama era 'feel good' policies thwarted the local justice system from putting him out of circulation. So the President is the Commander in Chief of all the U.S. military, including the irregular militias. If he sees the need to grab the guns out of the hands of a few crazies, then so be it.

Taking this idea further, the sitting President is your commander in chief, if you are an able bodied, non felon, citizen of the U.S.A. The B.S. concept of "Trump is not my President", doesn't mean that he isn't still your Commander in Chief. When TSHTF, all of these mutineers may find themselves in Kampf Copperhead. I.O.W.'s in deep Doo Doo. In the meantime, separating the wheat from the chaff, in the ranks of the irregular militias, is his sworn duty.

Case in point, Bump Stocks are not militarily deployable! Neither are Psychopaths. Even if Florida allows racketeers to ignore minorities committing felonies, to pad Federal School Grants, the POTUS is still sworn to help maintain the Florida irregular Militia. He just cannot bypass Congress and buy everyone in Florida, AR's.

Contretemps, if a State like Kali get too far left, the simple way to maintain their militias is to de-federalize the California National Guard. If they cannot trust in their able bodied citizens to keep and bear arms, then maybe they can trust their organized State Militia to be armed for their protection. The 2nd Amendment says that a State needs a Militia, it doesn't say how many militias are needed, by any one State. Nat'l Guards are U.S. Army, since they've been permanently federalized. So they don't count as a State's own Militia.

The rub here is that the Kalifornia Regular State Militia will be bought and paid for by, hold your breath, Kalifornia! And if Trump follows through on his threats, and pulls the U.S. Border Patrol, ICE, and customs away from the Mexican, Kali border crossings, then Kali will have to man them up. Or NOT? Mexico already has a million or so of Fifth Columnists in Kali, so without Federal Military Might, Mexico might just waltz in and take it back. And that will be a very bad outcome for all of Kali's Pinko Gringos.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Wait. Now you are taking what Trump says literally? lol...pay your rent.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Where are the 100 stars from his supporters here.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nickisup
Where are the 100 stars from his supporters here.


They are in a state of denial. The Leader is coming for their guns.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Just curious, which rights of citizens did he so casually dismiss before?


Sorry, to be more clear, I was referring to the posters here, not to Trump. They were ready and willing for Trump to do things like.. remove any free press that didn't kiss Trump's rear, even charging them with treason. And at that time, I posted that it was all fun and games until Trump tried to remove rights they cared about. And now here we are.



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

To defend your home a Shotgun and a big arse dog should be sufficient. To hunt, Bows and X'Bows are enough to bring down every beast in the US.


Completely ignoring the fact that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, there isn't a arrow or crossbow bolt in the world minus an explosive bolt, that is going to take down a black bear; you may as well be throwing twinkies to it so it at least wont kill you.



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Amendments are made when things change or progress to a point which necessitates remedial action.


Are you willfully or mistakenly forgetting "omissions"? Omissions were one of the top reasons for amendments when it was drafted.


Having rapid-fire weapons in your home is not what the founding fathers were referring to. Nor was having an unlimited supply of guns and ammo.


AR-15's are no more rapid fire than a Ruger 19100 carbine, or even a marlin .22 long rifle...the founding fathers also were not referring to a military whose capacity far outweighed the capacity of the constituents.



"The right to bear arms" - how many? Which kind?


Not the Governments or the Military's decision to make...


You could be allowed only a revolver at home and you're still having your right to bear arms met. You've all just decided to interpret it in a way which suits your narrative.

Not really, its quite the opposite. It's our decision to NOT over-interpret "it" in any way that gives us the right. In fact, it seems you're micromanaging and interpreting it as though it needs translation.



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluviangreat

good work but the last line trump guys need to snap out of the stupor.....naw ...that's you man

that's you.....we like trump better than hillary......trump may be the immoral leader ih Scripture......in the end......but hillary was demolished.....those whe just say no.....to hillary



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
See how that # flies in texas where the majority of his supporters are. rip.




top topics



 
48
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join