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.

 

Trump says deadly Pittsburgh synagogue attack would have been different with armed guard

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I still say just everyone carry pistols and rifles. Things will work themselves out soon enough.




posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We should just hang bear arms everywhere, there would be no wars or hunger if people just were like, oh man look at those bear arms.




posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12


I'm suprised more aren't calling out trump on this half-assed idea... For a so-called business man, he doesn't really do any math on his ideas...


To be fair, he had to answer that question on the fly with no one to tell him what to say.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: projectvxn

You know, by this logic then every single place in the America must have armed guards and that's some stupid logic.


Almost every place does except where anti-gunners have declared gun-free zones. They're called the armed American citizen.


edit on 27 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Thanks.

Clause 11: But a Letter of Marque and Reprisal doesn't really seem to apply. That's why I brought up the part about citizenship.

Clause 15: Insurrection? Maybe, when they actually get violent. But the law seems to take care of that, eventually.

I just realize this is starting to sound like I'm supporting Nazi's. I'm not. I'm just saying the Constitution allows them to do their thing as long as they don't break laws.


Going off topic though, even though you brought it up.

I don't think armed guards will do much to stop the gun carrying crazies from killing people.
edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Phage I know you're not trying to support Nazis.

We're just having a policy debate.

Letters of Marque can be and often were used against infamous criminals and insurrectionists with American citizenship.
edit on 27 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Letters of Marque can be and often were used against infamous criminals and insurrectionists with American citizenship.

I thought it was more about privateers stealing British ships, things along that line. But again, making Nazis illegal doesn't sound quite American. Weird, but true.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So now you both support nazis?

its late and i am confused



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There was some of that too. But Letters of Marque and declarations of insurrection have been used before to end violence or threats to the United States and her people.

I think they should be used again. Nazis aren't just some club, as we all know, they are an armed enemy army who has declared their intent to subvert the laws of the US, to kill Americans, and to institute governments alien to our way of life.

I'm not talking about a ban. I'm talking about putting down insurrectionists who are sworn enemies of the US. Either jail them or kill them outright.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Wait a minute are you talking about actual nazis, i thought they were extinct?


What, killing people? What if their baldness is just some genetic thing, like alopecia?
edit on 27-10-2018 by solve because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




I'm talking about putting down insurrectionists who are sworn enemies of the US.

And I'm saying that unless individuals commit crimes they are free to say anything they wish. When they commit crimes (and conspire to do so) they are dealt with.
www.sfgate.com...

Do you want to keep derailing your thread?

edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


I'm not talking about a ban. I'm talking about putting down insurrectionists who are sworn enemies of the US. Either jail them or kill them outright.


Who’s going to define insurrection in this context? Are you comfortable allowing people you don’t agree with politically to come up with what constitutes insurrection?

I only ask because me and people like me are labeled enemies of the U.S. almost daily because we don’t fawn over Donald Trump.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




Who’s going to define insurrection in this context? Are you comfortable allowing people you don’t agree with politically to come up with what constitutes insurrection?


This is the job of Congress. Everything I've spoken of is within the purview of congressional authority and within the confines of the constitution.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Okay folks that does it, nobody gets bear arms.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Do you want to keep derailing your thread?


I thought we were having a naturally evolving policy discussion.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: underwerks




Who’s going to define insurrection in this context? Are you comfortable allowing people you don’t agree with politically to come up with what constitutes insurrection?


This is the job of Congress. Everything I've spoken of is within the purview of congressional authority and within the confines of the constitution.


So you are comfortable with congress defining a certain part of the population as insurrectionists who will face death after being accused?

I’m about as anti-Nazi as you can get but even I think that’s a bad idea. Whether constitutional or not.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Ok.

I guess it's sort of related. But is anyone who hates Jews a nazi? Is that the definition?



edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: projectvxn

Ok.

I guess it's sort of related. But is anyone who hates Jews a nazi?



We both know it wouldn't work that way.

I'm not prescribing thought crime. I'm saying we take down these organizations and their membership and charge them with something really serious, like sedition, insurrection, and terrorism.

Edit:

Doing so would allow us to fight these very real and very large organizations in a manner that they are not prepared for.
edit on 27 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




I'm saying we take down these organizations and their membership and charge them with something really serious, like sedition, insurrection, and terrorism.

I don't think that's legal. You can charge those who commit the crimes, you cannot charge those who do not.

But as I said, the court is the place to handle it. Due process. I see you agree.

edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
www.jpost.com... many jewish churches allready have armed guards or other forms of security usually off duty or on duty cops




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join