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.

 

WAR: Proposed Bill will deny U.S. citizens the right to own a gun

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
If it takes the governments meddling in your "right" to own a gun that wakes you up to the blatant government abuses of the rest of your rights, then so be it. Why was there no uproar when your rights to travel freely were usurped? Why was there no uproar when your right to a free trial were usurped? No uproar when the FBI can search your home without a warrant? No uproar when your rights to privacy were obliterated? No uproar when your election was stolen for the 2nd time? No uproar when voters were denied their vote because their name was similar to that of a felon.

Each small, or not so small, erosion of personal freedoms leaves us poorer and weaker. Conversely it makes politicians richer and stronger. The time will come when we have so few rights that we legally wont be able to stop a single thing the government wants to do to us.


If subz and I are on the same side of an issue, then it must mean we're really getting screwed. Well said, subz.


Our government is removing power from the people, and they're doing it with finesse. They have dozens of years of experience in this area. We've got to adjust our country's leadership.

Usually, Republicans are all about less government. Less government is better for businesses. Well, what we have now is a government that caters to the largest corporations in the country and ignores the smaller ones. As for individual freedoms, well, there is no shortage of government in THAT area, due to the prevalence of Christianity in our lawmaker's pens.

Zip




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
Interesting connection. Never even thought about it. The Terrorist Watch list could be some elaborate attempt or push to biometric American society or push the infamous DNA chip that we have seen as of of recent.

Whats wrong with having a DNA chip or Bio-identification, it sure as hell beats standing in long queues trying to prove your identification. I think it would be faster and more hassle free!

About the guns, Zipdot ; So you would prefer if the terrorist went and blew up a school or killed a couple of hundred people so that you could "Convict" him of a crime then(legaly)and satisfy the leagal hurdles rather than saving lives at the cost of some of the 'suspects' liberties. Which do you prefer Preventive action or ensuing action??

This is what is the whole issue leads to - Do you want your freedoms?? or Do you want security?? You can't have both!!

The sooner people understand this question the sooner we will be rid of the paranoia. I am sure that the list would be available only to gun stores and after the FBI finishes its background check then you would be free to purchase and new weapon of your choice. What about the suspected terrorists ability to purchase ammunition, you can get that from Wallmart, that isn't going to be controlled then wouldn't the whole point of not allowing the terrorist suspects to have new weapons?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Why was there no uproar when your rights to travel freely were usurped? Why was there no uproar when your right to a free trial were usurped? No uproar when the FBI can search your home without a warrant? No uproar when your rights to privacy were obliterated? No uproar when your election was stolen for the 2nd time? No uproar when voters were denied their vote because their name was similar to that of a felon.
[edit on 14/4/05 by subz]


The crudest answer would be that even bull# tastes okay when it's sliced thin and served with lots of garnish. People will swallow anything in little bites, not realizing they've sold themselves out until it's too late. What worries me most is that thet're starting to force feed us and that means they think it's already too late for us to stop them.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Make up your bloody minds! For the love of...

They are denying guns to those who they suspect to be terrorists, do you want these "terrorists" to be buying shotguns and pistols?


There's no such thing as someone who is "suspected to be a terrorist" unless they are "suspected of having committed a terroristic crime." ONE MORE TIME, you are NOT a terrorist until you TERRORIZE.

Zip



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
About the guns, Zipdot ; So you would prefer if the terrorist went and blew up a school or killed a couple of hundred people so that you could "Convict" him of a crime then(legaly)and satisfy the leagal hurdles rather than saving lives at the cost of some of the 'suspects' liberties. Which do you prefer Preventive action or ensuing action??

This is what is the whole issue leads to - Do you want your freedoms?? or Do you want security?? You can't have both!!


I thought I made that clear: I would rather have my freedom. Leave my security to me, if you must.

YES we need to convict criminals before treating them as criminal convicts.

If we cannot arrest someone for anything until AFTER they bomb something, then SO BE IT. We DIDN'T CATCH THEM BREAKING THE LAW UNTIL AFTER THEY BOMBED SOMETHING@!

Zip



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Do you want your freedoms?? or Do you want security?? You can't have both!!



Just give me freedom, I'll look after my security myself.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
If people are on the terrorist watch list they should be arrested, not refused the right to buy guns. I hope they put people deserving on the list and not just anybody they feel like.

If they arent guilty of a crime yet they are innocent until proven guilty and their 2nd amendment remains.

Also note that even felons under the constitution still have a right to bear arms if they are still citizens. And those laws should actually be removed to preserve the Constitution.

It is jailtime that is supposed to take away their guns (because they are in jail), not taking away their guns when they are free.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
This says it all for me.


Give me liberty, or give me death. - Patrick Henry





[edit on 14-4-2005 by cohiba]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

If we cannot arrest someone for anything until AFTER they bomb something, then SO BE IT. We DIDN'T CATCH THEM BREAKING THE LAW UNTIL AFTER THEY BOMBED SOMETHING@!

Zip


Not sure if we need to leave ourselves that open to abuse, but certainly if there's a real reason to put someone on a terror suspect list, it should be able to stand up in court. You can't just keep a secret list and take away people's rights with no recourse.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
You can't just keep a secret list and take away people's rights with no recourse.


That's the theory. The practice seems different.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
IF this law is implemented and you buy a gun and a background check is done -- and IF you are denied as a part of the NICS background check you have the option of sending in a form that requests that you are told why you were denied -and if you feel it is in error you can start the process to change it. (see my earlier post) It is the same option you are offered now if you are denied after the background check. This is just another thing they have to look thru when you apply for a gun.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Obfuscate
Also note that even felons under the constitution still have a right to bear arms if they are still citizens. And those laws should actually be removed to preserve the Constitution.

It is jailtime that is supposed to take away their guns (because they are in jail), not taking away their guns when they are free.



I'm sorry to keep repeating myself but I think sometimes people come in at the end of a thread -- as I said earlier



Actually it is illegal for a felon to own any firearm - handgun, rifle or shotgun. As a part of the background check when buying a new firearm the fact that the person was a felon would be picked up and their purchase would be denied. As above if they felt the denial was in error they will be given a form to fill out and send in to find out why (as the dealer isn't told the reason for the denial) and have the opportunity to change it if they feel it is a mistake. Also on the form you fill out when they do the background check are questions --Specifically-- question B -- Are you under indictment or in any court for a felony and Question C - Have you been convicted of a felony that can imprision you for a year. And if you were to lie and say no - be assured it will be picked up on the background check.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I don't think the major issue is the actual background check. These are necessary for certain situations.

The issue is the criteria that will get you placed on these lists. If a system of control IS in place, it does not appear to be working properly. We don't know how someone gets placed on the list, nor how to clear your name should it be placed on the list in error.

I think the major concern is having your name show up on this list and have no due process for rebuttal. If a "terrorist" tries to buy a gun and shows up on the background check for denial, they will not be sold the weapon. This is a good thing. Now, if somebody with a "similar/same" name (but not a terrorist, just a good citizen that wants a gun) tries to buy a weapon, it appears (from the airline examples we have seen) they will also be denied.

I know they can send in the form to request a reason "why", but how does this person then go about getting their name cleared from the list and acquiring the weapon they are legally allowed to own? We don't even seem to really know where the list comes from, other than somewhere in the Homeland Security department. Good luck to average Joe Citizen getting his name cleared. Look at the fiasco a Senator had to go through.

This is all speculation at this point, as I don't believe the bill has made it to law yet, but these are some of the reasons people are so concerned about this potential new law. We want security. Many of us do not want to give up our freedoms, rights, and liberties to achieve "security."



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
I thought I made that clear: I would rather have my freedom. Leave my security to me, if you must.

I wonder why after 9/11 everybody was blaming the CIA and the FBI for failing to protect them from these Terrorists?? Why had the government been so complacent?-they all ask!

Great job everybody did of protecting their "own" security didn't they?
If you wish to protect yourself and be left alone to pursue your rights above other Americans right to "LIVE" safely in their own country then you can purchase your own country and live in it!



Originally posted by Zipdot
YES we need to convict criminals before treating them as criminal convicts.

And how do we go about that?? Would you be happy if people could be charged with "malicious thoughts/intent against the USA or its people in a effort to undermine freedom, peace etc" or "violent thoughts against the USA"?? Would that satisfy the ' LAW ' ? Would that grant the accused suffecient legal rights and liberties before their inevitable detention. Maybe you are an advocate of long drawn out legal litigation over the mundane but I am sure the people at the judiciary and those who have to pay the lawyers aren't!



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
If subz and I are on the same side of an issue, then it must mean we're really getting screwed. Well said, subz.

Well I think we both have personal freedoms and peoples best interests at heart so we're bound to agree on something



Originally posted by IAF101
Do you want your freedoms?? or Do you want security?? You can't have both!!

The sooner people understand this question the sooner we will be rid of the paranoia.

Wrong, entirely and utterly completly wrong!

Thats what government would like us to believe and for the most part the good people amongst us have believed that.

For example, when terrorism plagued the UK we never considered giving all our personal freedoms over to our government and they never asked us to do so. What they did is exactly what should be done today.

Conspiracy to commit terrorism is a crime and as such people suspected (with proof) to be a terrorist should be brought to trial. Given the chance to refute any evidence given against them and have a jury of their peers find them guilty or not guilty. Its a system that has served the West well for 200 years. Why change it now? Protecting witnesses? During the IRA trials witnesses where protected using sudonyms and special processes for removing identifiable parts of evidence where an informant would be compromised. It worked!

Why lock people up with no access to a trial if you already have a system in place to punish criminals? Could it be that a new system is being devised with the absence of justice under the pretext of security to repress us? Why seek to search a persons home without a warrant if you dont have a clandestine reason for doing so?

We have been led to believe that all this is being done to protect us from terrorists when really nothing is being done to stop terrorism. The only thing that is on the agenda here is to knock the edges off a democracy so that it looks like a democracy but it is really a police state dictatorship. Bush has even been quoted on saying that "if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator". Alarm bells any one?

If this list comprising suspected terrorists were legitimate in its aims of stopping terrorists then all on it should have their arses hauled infront of a judge. The incriminating evidence that got them on the list should be given and a verdict handed out. Guilty then slap that terrorist in jail. Innocent? Then leave the poor human being alone and put your resources into finding more terrorists.

Why is it so hard for them to do this? Because they are not out to protect us at all. They are after erroding our powers, our powers that were designed to stop politicians from doing what they are doing now. Our apathy has given them a toe-hold, now our ignorance is letting them go for gold.

[edit on 14/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by Zipdot
I thought I made that clear: I would rather have my freedom. Leave my security to me, if you must.

I wonder why after 9/11 everybody was blaming the CIA and the FBI for failing to protect them from these Terrorists?? Why had the government been so complacent?-they all ask!

Great job everybody did of protecting their "own" security didn't they?
If you wish to protect yourself and be left alone to pursue your rights above other Americans right to "LIVE" safely in their own country then you can purchase your own country and live in it!



I don't feel the need for any extra "security," I feel quite safe at the moment, thank you very much.

I never blamed any government organization for 9/11, except the USAF, which should have shot down those planes.




Originally posted by Zipdot
YES we need to convict criminals before treating them as criminal convicts.

And how do we go about that?? Would you be happy if people could be charged with "malicious thoughts/intent against the USA or its people in a effort to undermine freedom, peace etc" or "violent thoughts against the USA"?? Would that satisfy the ' LAW ' ? Would that grant the accused suffecient legal rights and liberties before their inevitable detention. Maybe you are an advocate of long drawn out legal litigation over the mundane but I am sure the people at the judiciary and those who have to pay the lawyers aren't!


No, that is precisely what I am fighting against. I think we need to convict people of REAL CRIMES, and if we can't convict people of REAL CRIMES, then those people should enjoy all the rights and freedoms of this country until we CAN convict them of REAL CRIMES. If they haven't committed any REAL CRIMES, then we cannot convict them of any REAL CRIMES, and, again, they should enjoy all the rights and freedoms of this country until we CAN convict them of REAL CRIMES.

Sometimes I just want to slap all of the people who say "BUT WE NEED SECURITY! I DON'T CARE AS LONG AS I'M SAFE!"

DENY IGNORANCE for crying out loud, would you?

Zip



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Buy more guns everyone.
Don't ever stop doing so.
If you can't buy them legally, buy them illegally.

The more guns in the hands of the people, the less likely that anyone will ever attempt a military dictatorship in this country.

The sad thing is right now, through legislation such as this pile of crap we see people introducing, they are removing our freedoms without the use of a military or seizure.

When will it all stop?

Not until we the people march upon DC with our guns in one hand and our readiness to die for our rights in the other.
That time is coming fast though.
More and more Americans wake up each day. More and more each day, join the revolution that is brewing.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elgringoloco
Not until we the people march upon DC with our guns in one hand and our readiness to die for our rights in the other.
That time is coming fast though.
More and more Americans wake up each day. More and more each day, join the revolution that is brewing.


Not as long as half of Americans fear and hate guns and irrationally call for our own disarmament and mythical "gun control."

Don't hate guns, hate homocide! Don't fear guns or "terrorists," fear a man in a suit who can put your name on a list. Hate that man!

Zip

EDIT:

Anti-gun people: you want a peaceful world without killing. I want a unicorn.

Maybe you'll get what you want when we're all shackled up, working some mines somewhere in slave labour camps, bowing to our masters... But I'll never get my precious unicorn... So sad.

(Just kiddin', I don't believe in the NWO, but still...)

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Well now....I for one do not like guns, not one bit and I have Marksman and Sharpshooter ribbons from the military...I think there should be reasonable controls on the sale of them...like a back ground check and a week waiting period BUT in regards to the old adage that if guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns all I have to say is bull# on that...if guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns and that worries me far more than outlaws ever will....so what is an old hippy liberal to do? Time to stock up on Loomponics gear. LOL!!!



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Check your dictionary: Right and Privilege mean the same thing! WTF!

A privilege is a right. A right is a privilege. What happens here?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join