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.

 

Dems Lose ‘Embarrassing’ Gun Control Amendment Vote After Multiple Defections

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Registration leads to confiscation and/Or taxation.

No Thanks! Oh, owning a vehicle isn't a constitutional right.




posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CriticalStinker

That thought also occurred to me.
Find all the guns.
Register all the guns.
Excise tax all the guns..


No thanks.


I personally think property tax as it stands is double jeopardy in almost all cases anyways, I agree.

But do you propose we just rid firearms of their serial numbers?

If we don't need to track them at all whats the point.


My DVD player has a serial number.
So does my toaster.


I think the whole thing is an overreaction to a situation that isnt much of a problem.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Registration leads to confiscation and/Or taxation.

No Thanks! Oh, owning a vehicle isn't a constitutional right.


Some rights come with responsibilities too.

I have the right to free speech, but there are certain things I cannot say. I cannot threaten someone.

There can be a conversation about living in 2019 and how we deal with firearms that doesn't infringe on rights.

Register a gun, if you sell it, report you sold it to john doe, take a picture of his ID, he has 24 hours to change it over... that helps you as much as it helps law enforcement.

If your gun gets stolen, report it, it's no longer registered to you.

If you don't want to do the above because it freaks you out.... buy an 80% lower receiver, aka make your own.

Honestly, the rules are more in place for vendors so they don't circumvent laws. I'm sure manufacturers and distributors would love to sell them to whoever has the coin.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: neo96

They are like the Marxists of the 60's and 70's who took over our institutions of higher learning.


They're the same people. Or their children or students.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

But you don't have to register your serialized dildo if you don't want to. It's only for warranty purposes.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ltdan08
a reply to: Bluntone22

But you don't have to register your serialized dildo if you don't want to. It's only for warranty purposes.


Like I'm not going to take advantage of the two year warranty.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Aren'T D's weapons of mass destruction?




posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


I think the whole thing is an overreaction to a situation that isnt much of a problem.


I can appreciate that. At the moment, I think we have bigger fish to fry as a nation than make something that isn't a pressing issue into a posturing point for the monkeys running for government.

As it stands, I don't think it's broken... In all reality, there will always be fire arms made by someone sold on the black market for 1000% markup.

There will always be some who don't comply with the system, there are always ways around things, and I typically know them.

But if we're being honest, it would make it hard for law enforcement to solve crimes if no gun was ever registered.... As much as I like my guns, I realize that's a truth.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Aren'T D's weapons of mass destruction?



Ever shot one out of a potato gun?



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
New York Gov Cuomo signed a bill this week, requiring guns to be seized if someone complains about the gun-owner.

www.breitbart.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Have I ever shot a dildo out of a potato gun?

No my potato would file for divorce.




posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
New York Gov Cuomo signed a bill this week, requiring guns to be seized if someone complains about the gun-owner.

www.breitbart.com...


Cuomo=NAZI.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Have I ever shot a dildo out of a potato gun?

No my potato would file for divorce.



You complain about millennials wanting to marry sex pots and you're married to your potato gun.

SMH

The double standards are egregious 🤣



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Lol... they lost a vote for an amendment, sure, but then went on to pass the bill... how embarrassing? I am sure the Senate will shoot it down.

Personally, I have nothing against the amendment. Sure w/e.



Even though the background check is unconstitutional


Unconstitutional? The supreme court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ruled:


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Background checks and other regulations are perfectly constitutional when ruled and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution firmly asserts the Supreme Court's authority.

It's not an unlimited right. You can't do down and buy a bazooka because you want, yet I never see people complaining about "infringement" there. Criminals in jail and prison don't have access to firearms. Isn't that "infringement"?

Do background checks even work? The answer is yes.


A follow-up study found the Brady Bill stopped 2.1 million gun purchases between 1994 and 2014—an average of 343 purchases per day.[3] The law blocked 1 million felons, 291,000 domestic abusers, and 118,000 fugitives from purchasing a firearm.



The Brady Bill allows states to decide whether local law enforcement or the FBI will do a background check within that state. A two-year study showed that having background checks done at the local level resulted in a 27% lower rate of gun-related suicides and 22% lower rate of gun-related murders.




IF anyone can name ANY mass shooter that didn't under go the background check.


Columbine High School massacre, neither had to undergo background checks because they didn't even buy their own guns.


Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.

No background check was done there! So, there ya go. There are plenty of others but you only asked for ANYmass shooter. Google is your friend.

All this said, I am not against guns and don't believe in banning them or even restricting ammo. "Assault" weapons classification is a joke. But there's nothing wrong with better background checks and ALL of the evidence shows it would help curtail violence. Period.


edit on 28-2-2019 by VoiceOfTheEmperor because: Words.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ltdan08
a reply to: Bluntone22

But you don't have to register your serialized dildo if you don't want to. It's only for warranty purposes.



I dont know if my dildo is a guaranteed right in the constitution.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: VoiceOfTheEmperor




Background checks and other regulations are perfectly constitutional when ruled and interpreted by the Supreme Court


No they're not.

Shall not be infringed. 2nd.

The right of the people to be secure in their houses,papers, and effects. 4th

No person shall be held answerable to a capitol or otherwise infamous crime THE FIFTH.

In all criminal prosecutions the accussed shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

Where GUILT is proven beyond ALL Reasonable doubt. 6th amendment,

The 7th amendment a gun costs more than $20 bucks. People have their RIGHT to due process.

The 8th amendment Cruel and unusual punishment ( it's cruel and unusual for Gunphobes trying to hold people that don't commit a crime ANSWERABLE for the actions of someone else.

The 9th amendment. The same thing SHALL NOT INFRINGE means.

The 10th. We the people are the sovereign power of this snip hole.

And the 14th amendment. That says NO state shall make or enforce ANY LAW that infringes the peoples CIVIL LIBERTY.

So READ the GD bill of rights and those amendments instead of Parrotting a moronic Scotus ruling.

That GOT IT WRONG.
edit on 28-2-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ltdan08
a reply to: Bluntone22

But you don't have to register your serialized dildo if you don't want to. It's only for warranty purposes.



I dont know if my dildo is a guaranteed right in the constitution.


Right to bear arms... Don't tread on me.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

that's the main issue with this bill; it requires the individuals to go to a licensed dealer to have a check run and pay the fees. This background check also extends to transfers and BORROWING firearms.

Yes, If you were to loan say, a shotgun, to a friend for a weekend hunting trip, you would both have to go to a licensed dealer, have a check run. Guess what happens when you give the gun back? yep, back to the dealer to have another check run, more fees. Oh, and you're registering it each and every time.

This bill is more about background checks, that's a big reason there is so much push back regarding it.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

... You've misrepresented that case so badly. Guess what, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) didn't even challenge the legality of background checks, or whether or not they infringed on the second amendment... the case was about the 10th amendment, and local and state law enforcement being compelled to perform them.

The federal government violated the Tenth Amendment when Congress required state and local officials to perform background checks on people buying guns.

And yes, the supreme court sided with the plaintiff that the federal government shouldn't be able to force law enforcement to execute federal law. That's all the case was about...

The irony of the case, is that MOST local and state law enforcement were perfectly willing to comply with the Brady Act interim provisions (background check) and this ruling didn't change that...



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neo96

They should make committing a crime with a firearm illegal.

Everything else? Is just government encroachment on a Constitutional right.



But what if you "found" one at the beach just minding your own business shooting at some seals and accidentally kill a girl and you are here illegally... again?

Boy would my face be red!




top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join