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.

 

US congressman proposes law, confiscating guns

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: PurpleFox
The end game to this, IMO, can only be civil war? Right?



Nah, I realize it’s a rwnj’s wet dream. But in the end it would require effort and shooting at something that is shooting back. I don’t see the gun nuts fairing well at all. On the bright side, the world would be a much better place afterwards.




posted on May, 4 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

Nothing is more important then the Constitution/BOR. No life, no property, no religion and no ideology.

You should familiarize yourself with history, our DOI, and our unalienable (written in stone, totally immovable) Constitution/BOR.

Might clear things up for you. You seem a bit confused.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy


Nah, I realize it’s a rwnj’s wet dream. But in the end it would require effort and shooting at something that is shooting back. I don’t see the gun nuts fairing well at all. On the bright side, the world would be a much better place afterwards.


Is that why the left mooches off the right so much? Welfare, Food stamps, Medicaid, etc. You do realize it is *you people* who are standing on our coat-tails, and not the other way around. Yes?

But you know, we are so lazy that's why we FUND your worthless side's a##es. If it were up to me, you all wouldn't get another dime of our hard-earned money. You aren't owed anything. You sure as hell don't deserve it. Hungry? Go eat some insects or grab left-overs from the dumpster.

Get a job, and maybe you won't have to obsess over the prospect of totally losing the civil war you brain-children are trying to start. THE CIVIL WAR WE DO NOT WANT

My only "wet dream" is seeing you free-loading moochers actually go out and get a real job. And maybe to put some ICE on your rear-end since it is clearly still sore from the 2016 election (Clinton's shameful defeat)
edit on 5/4/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

Yeah, that makes absolutely no sense. Like another poster said, come and get you some.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soundguy


Nah, I realize it’s a rwnj’s wet dream. But in the end it would require effort and shooting at something that is shooting back. I don’t see the gun nuts fairing well at all. On the bright side, the world would be a much better place afterwards.


Is that why the left mooches off the right so much? Welfare, Food stamps, Medicaid, etc. You do realize it is *you people* who are standing on our coat-tails, and not the other way around. Yes?

But you know, we are so lazy that's why we FUND your worthless side's a##es. If it were up to me, you all wouldn't get another dime of our hard-earned money. You aren't owed anything. You sure as hell don't deserve it. Hungry? Go eat some insects or grab left-overs from the dumpster.

Get a job, and maybe you won't have to obsess over the prospect of totally losing the civil war you brain-children are trying to start.


Lol. Seems like you have a lot of fear and pent up anger there skippy. Oddly enough, EVERY government mooch I know is a white conservative. As for me. I’m an honerbly discharged veteran, who doesn’t believe the 2nd covers, for lack of a better term “assault weapons.” I’m self employed, debt free, well insured, and loving life. You may want to re-evaluate The make believe gun control advocates that exist only in your over active imagination.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy


who doesn’t believe the 2nd covers, for lack of a better term “assault weapons.”


Ah, well I can clear that up for you. Here is the actual text.


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.


You should read the definition of militia (organized vs. unorganized) and also the definition of "infringed" and critically think about what "shall not be infringed" means.

Sadly for you, 2A says nothing about "assault weapons" (even though machine-guns existed when it was written)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
So why are ex post facto addendums okay for “gun control” laws? And if “gun nuts” were half as scary as made out to be, then why aren’t they mowing down left and right the people that suggest these types of things as well as those that support them?

Something seems off on the justification process.

Now if were that some seriously shady people are wanting to get down to doing some seriously shady stuff and wanted no armed resistance to that, like putting a lookout on the corner that will text “50 bro” while you are robbing a gas station, then it makes sense. Certainly more understandable than we are doing this so you have a better tomorrow jazz that gets said.

Won’t someone think of the children, you know to keep them from being defenseless victims of malcontents and their machinations?


edit on 4-5-2018 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy


EVERY government mooch I know is a white conservative.


Most of the ones I know are white as well. But conservative? Not usually...

And besides, are we talking about those receiving legitimate assistance (working two jobs, can't stay ahead) or druggies who subsist entirely on public money while enjoying all the finer things of life (seafood, expensive cell phones, new clothes, etc)

Big difference.


edit on 5/4/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt

originally posted by: EternalSolace
If Californians declare a calexit, can we declare open season on all foreign Californian illegals?

Which California? In November we vote on whether or not to split California into three states.


One thing about that, if part of California goes off on their own, we can stick an import tax on anything the rest of the United states people buy from that area. It won't be required to charge China or other countries for an imbalance, so we need to tax what they sell to the US. Since that creates an imbalance if we do not, sooner or later a lot of US money will wind up fueling the Calexit state. WE need to make sure that the AWOL state is not profiting by their breaking away from our nation and we must withdraw all of out military bases from those areas and if they want protection they need to pay for it.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

Then I'd bet dollars to pennies you didn't serve in a combat role. It Absolutely covers ANY and ALL weapons. Even the ban on selling new fully automatic weapons is unconstitutional...

Yeah, your working as a technician in the background is honorable but doesn't give you any special insight into what is necessary for the populace to defend itself.

Jaden



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt
a reply to: Phage

Give it time. Keep watching California. Its the testing ground. Last year they passed a bill banning the POSSESSION of magazines holding over 10 rounds. Meaning any legally possessed mags over 10 rounds are now illegal, no grandfather clause. Expect to see something similar for AR/AK platforms after Gavin Newsom get elected. Thats why they want a registry of all the scary guns in California.


Yeah all true, but in the meantime, like Phage suggests, dont do or say anything about the incrimental disarming of the public.

When SWAT shows up, cuffs you, and takes your newly illegalized guns that youve owned legally forever, THEN is the time to speak up.

😂



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden


Even the ban on selling new fully automatic weapons is unconstitutional...


Yes, and sadly our ancestors allowed this atrocity to go unopposed. Sad day, when the "mafia" issues were hyper-inflated by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover & co conspirators with the expressed intent of consolidating power/disarming the people.

The people have always (and will always) be the only credible challenge to government malfeasance, oversteps and blatant unconstitutional tyranny. No wonder they and their ilk are foaming at the mouth to grab up the guns.

Not on my watch.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
HOW are they going to prosecute any one that instead of turning in there AW takes it out of state.

I will say right now i live in calif and did not turn in my 30 round mags but instead i took them to nevada and have them stored with my tracer and other ammo that is illegal in calif but completely legal in nevada.

I am a U.S. Citizen of the US and have the legal right to own my weapons anyplace they are legal.

if they become illegal in any state i will just move them to where its legal.
edit on 4-5-2018 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

if my tombstone reads "He died protecting the Second Amendment" thats OK by me.
edit on 4-5-2018 by dbarnhart because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Let me know when there is a bill (much less a law) instead of an op-ed.


Perhaps you don't understand how this work Phage, but people are trying to stop such a bill from ever being written... that representative, like many others, has shown himself to be nothing but another fool who wants to take away the right of Americans to defend themselves. I wonder why any of these morons who want to disarm the U.S. don't simply move to Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, or even the U.K., Wales, etc?...



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy

originally posted by: skunkape23
Come on and get you some, boy.


So you would become a murderer just to have an assault weapon?


And there is the difference.
It’s so lost on you, I can’t begin to explain it.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

They can come to my door personally and I would introduce them to the wolverine label on my steel toe boot on their posterior.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
HOW are they going to prosecute any one that instead of turning in there AW takes it out of state.

I will say right now i live in calif and did not turn in my 30 round mags but instead i took them to nevada and have them stored with my tracer and other ammo that is illegal in calif but completely legal in nevada.

I am a U.S. Citizen of the US and have the legal right to own my weapons anyplace they are legal.

if they become illegal in any state i will just move them to where its legal.


Correct. Removing the illegal item from the state is fine. I dont think they mean prosecuting people for owning an item that is illegal in this state while it is in another state. Otherwise Steven Spielberg (owner of one of the largest class 3 collections, all stored up in Idaho) is F'd.
Really a big reason that California does laws like this is to create a chilling effect on gun ownership.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Masterjaden


Even the ban on selling new fully automatic weapons is unconstitutional...


Yes, and sadly our ancestors allowed this atrocity to go unopposed. Sad day, when the "mafia" issues were hyper-inflated by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover & co conspirators with the expressed intent of consolidating power/disarming the people.

The people have always (and will always) be the only credible challenge to government malfeasance, oversteps and blatant unconstitutional tyranny. No wonder they and their ilk are foaming at the mouth to grab up the guns.

Not on my watch.


The miller case, which challenged NFA, was steaming pile. Miller didnt even show up, and the judges ruled that NFA didnt violate the second amendment because it didnt restrict weapons that were in use by the military. Which is funny because shotguns were used heavily in the trenches of world war 1 and the Thompson machine gun used heavily in world war 2 just 3 years after this ruling.
Even funnier is that recently....
www.newsweek.com...
a judge ruled that the second amendment doesnt cover AR15s because they ARE weapons that would be used by the military.
So which is it? Kinda goes to show that its all nonsense and the government will just interpret thing however they want to do what they want.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soundguy


Nah, I realize it’s a rwnj’s wet dream. But in the end it would require effort and shooting at something that is shooting back. I don’t see the gun nuts fairing well at all. On the bright side, the world would be a much better place afterwards.


Is that why the left mooches off the right so much? Welfare, Food stamps, Medicaid, etc. You do realize it is *you people* who are standing on our coat-tails, and not the other way around. Yes?

But you know, we are so lazy that's why we FUND your worthless side's a##es. If it were up to me, you all wouldn't get another dime of our hard-earned money. You aren't owed anything. You sure as hell don't deserve it. Hungry? Go eat some insects or grab left-overs from the dumpster.

Get a job, and maybe you won't have to obsess over the prospect of totally losing the civil war you brain-children are trying to start.


Lol. Seems like you have a lot of fear and pent up anger there skippy. Oddly enough, EVERY government mooch I know is a white conservative. As for me. I’m an honerbly discharged veteran, who doesn’t believe the 2nd covers, for lack of a better term “assault weapons.” I’m self employed, debt free, well insured, and loving life. You may want to re-evaluate The make believe gun control advocates that exist only in your over active imagination.


Excellent. Then as a veteran trained in the use of weapons, please define 'assault weapon' and how a semi-automatic firearm fits into that category. Should be a piece of cake for someone trained in responsible use of modern weaponry.




top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join