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.

 

House Democrats Plan ‘Aggressive’ Gun Control Push

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Hey, if you want to always go last at 4-way stops, that's your business.
We follow the law here. First one at the stop, or car on the right.




Better luck next time.

Nice try.

I won.
edit on 11/12/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Do they realize that every time they try and push this control agenda that more guns end up being sold? That's an angle I wouldn't mind investigating, seeing what Democrat leaders are in bed with the manufacturers in order to drive up profits. They know full well that regardless of what they try and do it will inevitably fail due to the 2nd, so what's the end game? I'll admit to being guilty of it just as much as some, they spout off that they're trying to pass "combat style" weapons bans, and I end up throwing some money at the economy and buying another one. Hmmm...



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I won.

No, I won.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: xuenchen

I dont understand how any of the proposed laws your article mentions would have stopped the CA shooter.

He used a handgun, would have passed background checks I believe seeing as how police met him before the shooting and didnt register him as a problem.

And his magazine I believe was already against the law in CA, yet that didnt stop him from obtaining it.

So in other words they are politicizing this shooting and admitting that nothing they are suggesting would have stopped it.



Most people tend to just ignore laws they don't agree with if they can get away with it easily.

Last time I lived in California, they had just banned magazines that held more than 8 or 10 rounds (can't quite remember which) So out of spite I went and got magazine extenders for all of the 15 round magazines I brought with me.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I never thought I'd see the day a party runs on higher taxes and gets voted in. But then again a majority of the Dem voters don't pay taxes so I guess that makes sense.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I wonder how many divisive type threads you will create today Foxy.
Spread that rage. Keep the floodgates of hate open.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi




a majority of the Dem voters don't pay taxes s


Such bullsnip.
What if I said "Most republicans can't read above a seventh grade level and they never go to college." ?
See how that doesn't work?
I pay out the nose in taxes and I've been retired for years.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Good it’s a long time coming. We as a society need to start treating gun fetishists as the mentally defective minority that they are. a reply to: xuenchen



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cynicalheathen




If they try it, they'll likely get the War Between the States 2.0 that they seem to want.

Here's a little refresher course for you:


Don’t even know if we can call these refreshers anymore...not sure they even teach these things in schools anymore.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

Or the audience is not up to the task.

I'll work on it.


Senders responsibility to ensure communication, not the receivers. See any Communications 101 course. That aside, I sometimes have the same problem. I just don’t think I should need to write 100 words for what I could say in 25!



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
Good it’s a long time coming. We as a society need to start treating gun fetishists as the mentally defective minority that they are. a reply to: xuenchen



While we’re at it, can we get all the dumbass drivers off the road permanently?

ANYBODY who didn’t think Democratic Party wouldn’t go after the boogie man immediately is living with their head in the sand. We didn’really expect them (liberals) to go after the actual problem and try to fix the growing mental health problems by addressing the lack of PROPER mental health care now, did we?



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
If democrats try to restrict Americans access to guns, they are all but ensuring their own defeat in 2020.

good luck to them!

We keep saying that, yet somehow they keep winning elections.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
If democrats try to restrict Americans access to guns, they are all but ensuring their own defeat in 2020.

good luck to them!

We keep saying that, yet somehow they keep winning elections.


From Q drop 2492

ARIZONA
R Gov won by 328,000 votes.
D Sen is winning by 32,000 votes.
R Gov won Maricopa County by 325,000 votes.
D Sen winning Maricopa by 32,000 votes?
[350,000] vote swing to D Sen?

I wonder how that happened.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


The above is the congressional oath of office.


I posted it out of irony because the politicians are trying to undermine and negate the same Constitution they swore to support and defend.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Basically, there are three probable effects:

A). No bill will get to the senate. One might even have trouble clearing the democratic house. The republicans will demand an on-the-record vote, instead of a voice vote. And all the reps from rural or purple districts will face the prospect of going on the record to register private gun sales. They'll either sacrifice their careers, or decide that this legislation "isn't well written." At any rate, the senate won't pass, and trump would veto. Even if it COULD pass (which it can't), it would be like the assault weapons ban of '93, which swept the dems out with the "republican takeover" of 1994.

B). The price of magazines, and assembled ARs will skyrocket. Most gun owners are increasingly assembling their own ARs. There will be undocumented "gun tourism" to Texas to buy large-capacity magazines direct from magpul while the are still legal. US gun owners will become adept at gun-smithy and hiding paperwork.

C. Average gun owners will decide not to register at least some of their guns. Magazines are easy to hide in the home, and middle class Americans will get used to participating in a lucrative black market. That's even when the bill fails. The black market in magazines has already started, and some investors are buying large mags now, even though they don't have a gun, purely as an investment.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Several Texas attorneys are already marketing a "gun trust" or "gun ownership LLC."

The legal entity buys the gun and goes on record with the state & fed govts.; your transfer into ownership/beneficiary status in the entity does not change the ownership status of the guns. In Texas, the humans involved in the legal entity don't have to register with the state; their lawyer just has to maintain the records, for govt perusal on demand. So you can heir your guns to the grandkids without having to pay a $100 fee to a licensed firearm dealer and putting your grandkids into the national criminal identification system.

You don't have to be a Texas resident to be a stakeholder in a Texas limited liability company. And the guns don't have to remain in Texas...



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I understand that mass shootings have gotten so bad that people really don't even flinch when they hear about them anymore. However, I have yet to see a single law that would prevent these shootings in any way. There are a few things that need to be tightened up but I don't like the idea of the government restricting access to firearms from the public.

Like it or not, it is part of the Constitution and part of the American identity for many.

The real problem is that our society has become fractured. I have no idea how to solve it, probably the only way is a common enemy.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Good think there's a system of checks and balances.

Right?

There is now with the newest appointed scotus nominations



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Phage
Good think there's a system of checks and balances.

Right?

There is now with the newest appointed scotus nominations



The Democrats will have a hard time with this and will be opening themselves up to a plethora of lawsuits.

www.nytimes.com... and-limited-gun-control



There was a time when the only constraint on firearm restrictions was the popular will. Now, with Heller and McDonald on the books, legislatures must also contend with the Constitution. This altered dynamic is illustrated by the constitutional challenge to New York’s post-Sandy Hook gun laws. A federal judge in Buffalo upheld the SAFE Act’s assault weapon registry and prohibition of magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. But the court invalidated the requirement that only seven bullets could be loaded into a ten-bullet magazine. “It stretches the bounds of this court’s deference to the predictive judgments of the legislature,” Judge William Skretny wrote, “to suppose that those intent on doing harm (whom, of course, the act is aimed to stop) will load their weapon with only the permitted seven rounds.” In other words, the fanciful law makes no sense — as it will never be followed by malefactors — and doesn’t pass constitutional muster.


Also see:

www.washingtonpost.com... t=on&utm_term=.ea5dfbaeea72



The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”


My take away from this reading is that the SCOTUS has said that so long as it is not concealed it is legal to open carry any type of weapon.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Meh, go ahead and ban.

Oh, what’s this:


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Gonna be a VERY expensive ban and the time for all those trials...cheaper just to keep things the way they are.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join