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.

 

Who is the bigger fascist? Trump or Democrats?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
After reading this article, and the Yougov poll. I am left wondering. Who is the bigger fascist? Trump said take the guns, and leave the cannoli so to speak.The Democrats want to ban ALL semi auto's. When it makes no distinction between rifle or pistol.

82% of Dems favor ban semiautomatic weapons.

Hell, there is even a percentage that wants to repeal the second amendment entirely.

Holy EFF.

The poll.



Overall Americans are at 55/33, with even Republicans at a surprisingly narrow 37/53 in opposition





Americans are strongly opposed overall but Democrats are on the fence at 44/46.




Democrats are also evenly split at 39/41 on, uh, whether to repeal the Second Amendment.


Good hell.

Related Reading:

82% of Dems favor banning all semiautomatic weapons



Abolish Planned Parenthood!

I retort.

I RESIST.

What about you?




posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Mussolini.

Mussolini is the bigger fascist.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Glad to help



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Well, that wasn't very helpful.




posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Does the right to bear arms say any and all types?
Let's just say a certain type of gun was taken away.
Plenty of others so people could still bear arms.

It's an honest question.

Does it mean any and all types?



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Bigger how?

Going by volume, trump is just one man, and couldn’t possibly be the bigger fascist.
Going by mass, we likely get the same result.
If you stacked all of the Democrats end on end they’re probably taller too.

It doesn’t seem like a fair match up.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

It makes no distinction.



Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Says nothing about what they can look like.

Says nothing about how many rounds that come out the end of the barrel with the squeeze of the trigger.

Says nothing about devices that make them quite so they don't annoy the neighbors.

It says what it says.

Read it as it is.

Nothing was left up to interpretation.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra




Going by volume,


Ok, let's go by volume.

The National Firearms Act of 1934,Gun Control Act of 1968,Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993 that created the unconstitutional background check the SCOTUS said.

That affects the inalienable rights of every man and woman over the age of 18 for the last 75+ years.

The Volume award goes to the Democrats.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Except it is interpreted all the time in law. Just cause you want it to be a certain way does not mean it is.

And it does not specify. So for the sake of this thread if semi autos were banned and could not be had you still have plenty you can get your hands on so you still can have guns and be in the militia and defend yourself.

So again. How is banning some stopping you from bearing arms?
Fact is it does not say any and all.

Do you think a person should be able to own any and all types of arms?



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You keep using the term inalienable like you really really want it to be true when it's not.

That right was given to us by men.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears




Except it is interpreted all the time in law. J


It's illegal.

Everyone knows it.

Because A person is not supposed to be held answerable to a capital or otherwise infamous crime he/she/IT did not have anything to do with.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: eNumbra




Going by volume,


Ok, let's go by volume.

The National Firearms Act of 1934,Gun Control Act of 1968,Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993 that created the unconstitutional background check the SCOTUS said.

That affects the inalienable rights of every man and woman over the age of 18 for the last 75+ years.

The Volume award goes to the Democrats.

K.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears




Plenty of others so people could still bear arms.

Some folks do say I have bear arms . And , I have the right to bare them too . Specially in the summer.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: neo96

You keep using the term inalienable like you really really want it to be true when it's not.

That right was given to us by men.



So our RIGHTS come from each other?

Is that what your saying?

Because they don't.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Right to bear arms shall not be infringed, seems clear to me.a reply to: TinySickTears



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

I wonder if Mussolini had bare bear arms too...



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: TinySickTears




Except it is interpreted all the time in law. J


It's illegal.

Everyone knows it.

Because A person is not supposed to be held answerable to a capital or otherwise infamous crime he/she/IT did not have anything to do with.


I don't think everyone knows it cause it's not true.
The law and the constitution is interpreted all the time by people who have spent years studying the law around it.
They're all wrong but not you.

Can you answer me now?

Do you think people should be able to own any type of gun?

Why do you think a certain kind being banned means you can't have guns to protect yourself?



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears




The law and the constitution is interpreted all the time by people who have spent years studying the law around it.


Hmm.



In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


en.wikipedia.org...

No interpretation.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: neo96

You keep using the term inalienable like you really really want it to be true when it's not.

That right was given to us by men.



So our RIGHTS come from each other?

Is that what your saying?

Because they don't.


Some do. Yes
Some, like the right to bear arms was given to us by other men.
Are you saying that's not true?



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


www.law.cornell.edu...

Back to the GD op instead of someone continuing their troll.

82% of Democrats want to ban semi auto's.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You're the one that posted an article that equivocated inalienable rights to natural rights. How can something that isn't natural (guns) be a natural right (aka inalienable right by your definition)?




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join