Obama's bloodbath ban on semi automatic rifles,shotguns and pistols., page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 10:09 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by netwarrior

So your approach is that the Government gets to decide what a militia is?

Doesnt that defeat the purpose of a non-government militia ???

What exactly am i missing here?

Are there camera's behind those curtains?

Am i on candid camera?

reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 10:45 PM by orangetom1999

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by netwarrior

So your approach is that the Government gets to decide what a militia is?

Doesnt that defeat the purpose of a non-government militia ???

What exactly am i missing here?

Are there camera's behind those curtains?

Am i on candid camera?

NO Andrew...

That is precisely the default setting that the Clinton Administration tried to pass off in their arguments on gun issues..that the national guard was the militia. By government decree/statement. That the government gets to decide. The public is way to stupid...we need government to decide for us. We are such helpless, spineless jellyfish. We need government to decide for us. By default!!

To my knowlege the Clinton Administration never quoted the Dick Act or that code in the USCA Title 10 Section 311. They will stay as far away as necessary.

I dont think any other administration with such a stance is ever going to quote Title 10 Section 311. They too will stay as far away from that one as possible.

In law or legal terms ..this misuse or misdirection ...deception is called Legal Fiction ..or Fiction of Law.
I beliieve it is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as.....

An assumption or suppositioin that something which is or may be false..is true, or that a state of facts exists, which has never really taken place.

Such an assumption is of necessary or even benificial character, and made for the advancement of the ends of justice.

This is a fancy legal way of making rules or lying to achieve justice.

This is also called politics...you know... for example....."I never had sex with that girl"

We hear variations of this alot ...more and more as time goes by. Made for the advancement of the ends of justice. Praise God!!!

Thanks
Orangetom

reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 10:50 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by orangetom1999

...but when he cites me a government document that outlines the parameters for a militia

then you are saying....the government decides what a militia is?

I dont see how im wrong...

I'm not being condescending. Im asking - seriously - how am i wrong?

[edit on 8/16/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 10:59 PM by tac109

Im not a violent person I try to avoid any and all confrontations, but DONT mess with my FREEDOM! If anybody tries to take my guns that I legally own then they will get them bullets first. I travel often to the south, and I happen to know that the Southerners will not give up their guns without a fight, I will feel bad for the powers that try to take away guns from the fine people that live in the southern states. The right to bear arms is not up for debate, its not a matter of opinion, its very cut and dry, Americans have the right to own firearms, always have and always will.

reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 11:14 PM by orangetom1999

No Andrew...in the case of USCA 10 Sect 311...the government outlined what was already known informations about the Militia. What already was known from before the founding of this country.

What the Clinton Administration tried to do in the line of a legal fiction is only tell part of the story ...to keep people ignorant. I knew even back then what they were trying to do...having never read Title 10 Section 311.
For I already knew of several states where private citizens formed their own militias under current laws..not under the control of the State Governors. In the case of the Clinton Administraion ...it was they who tried to decree...government decree...even in misdirection and untruth.

Other Administations will try this same tack again in the future. Rest assured of this ...they will attempt the Legal Fiction once again.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 12:45 AM by Illahee

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by netwarrior

So your approach is that the Government gets to decide what a militia is?

The govt doesn't get to decide squat. It plainly written in the constitution. Here is a lesson for those boneheads that can't understand english.

www.youtube.com...

And no I don't like alex jones anymore than bush, hillary mccain or obama. They are all less than what America deserves.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 02:48 PM by netwarrior

I apologize for not responding sooner. Last time I checked this thread it was way down at the bottom of the page and I assumed it to be dead.

Andrew, you're using semantics to provide an argument. However, I will oblige you. If you don't want to listen to the law, how about statements from some of the founding fathers?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe

Now, you have not only a stated law defining the militia, but you have two of the founding fathers' definitions which closely resembles that of USC 10:330. George Mason is largely responsible for the 2nd Amendment wording.

I rest my case, y'Honor.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by netwarrior]

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 04:34 PM by Illahee

"Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ."

That is a real gem. Ya gotta love those Federalist papers. Pretty much spells it all out right there.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 04:37 PM by netwarrior

reply to post by Illahee

Exactly, that's why it baffles me that ANY educated person can possibly deny the intentions of the founding fathers and what they meant.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the 1st Amendment...and the 3rd Amendment..and the 4th Amendment, so on and so forth.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 04:40 PM by Illahee

Could it be:

1. They are knowingly misleading and lying.

2. Promoting an agenda as paid promoters.

3. Failed American history in school and are making an attempt now.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 10:14 PM by himself

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by TheDarkTurnip

Amen to that.

I've often said that if the gun ban lobby in DC were serious and genuine, they'd go after handguns first. Handguns are the weapon of choice in 75-80% of all firearm related murders. Rifles of ALL types (not just those evil assault rifles)...less than 10%.
...
Not that I'm in support of either ban, mind you. I'm not. But it would show some sincerity at attempting to address the actual problem. That problem is not, and never has been, assault rifles or any other rifle.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by vor78]

The problem has never been weapons of any kind.

The problem has always been people who commit violent criminal acts.

Knife control, baseball bat control, hammer control, rock control.

A gun of any kind,
like any other tool,
just lays there, no threat to anyone,
until someone picks it up and uses it.

Experimental proof:
I laid a loaded 9mm handgun on a bookshelf.
For eight years it lay there.
Not harming anyone.
Picked up, by me, and carried legally concealed, in my pocket,
it still harms no one.

Gun control in proper context:
"No gun, under my control, will ever be used to commit a crime."

[edit on 18-8-2008 by himself]

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 10:27 PM by himself

Originally posted by tac109
...I travel often to the south, and I happen to know that the Southerners will not give up their guns without a fight, I will feel bad for the powers that try to take away guns from the fine people that live in the southern states. The right to bear arms is not up for debate, its not a matter of opinion, its very cut and dry, Americans have the right to own firearms, always have and always will.

I've read a lot of bitchin about the cops confiscating guns in New Orleans after Katrina.

Here is what happened during the aftermath of Katrina on MY street:

Hurricane and it's flood had made the normally 140' wide river out back, about two miles wide.
I'd stayed home and retreated upstairs and watched as water on the ground floor got within inches of the ceiling.
Hurricane gone, but water still over waist deep for days; I watched as Police set up barricades up the street and turned people back whose ID showed they did not live in my neighborhood.
One cop and I talked/yelled to each other for a few minutes.
He asked me what I would do about looters.
I showed him a large vhs videocam.
"Point this at them and be a good witness for the prosecution!"
"Do you have any guns?"
"I got enough guns to invade Cuba." I replied (southern slang for more than one)
He laughed and said they wouldn't worry about my safety then.

Fact vs fiction:
Clinton did not invent the assault weapons ban.
That was daddy Bush.
Clinton just extended the cosmetic provisions of that ban. Bayonets etc.

During the Clinton administrations many states passed Concealed Carry Legislation.
Most Americans bought more guns while Clinton was in office.

Universal right of all citizens to keep and bear arms?
Do you really want convicted felons, habitual drunks, drug addicts and wife beaters bearing arms?
I don't.

reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 12:07 AM by Illahee

Originally posted by netwarrior
reply to post by Illahee

Exactly, that's why it baffles me that ANY educated person can possibly deny the intentions of the founding fathers and what they meant.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the 1st Amendment...and the 3rd Amendment..and the 4th Amendment, so on and so forth.

Its so obvious only someone with an agenda that does not care if they lie to the world would even try to second guess the meaning or even the meanings in the federalist papers which clearly describe the intent for all time, not just during the formation of the country.

reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 05:08 PM by jam321

reply to post by himself

Clinton did not invent the assault weapons ban.
That was daddy Bush.

I believe it was Clinton administration.

It was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994

source

I believe daddy Bush banned the import of assault weapons.

But the again you did say invent so you may be correct with that term.

reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 10:05 AM by Illahee

What about Pelosi?

Wants to ban barrel shrouds on guns and can't even explain what one is.

Filthy little puppets. Where are the term limits? We want term limits and morons like these working at burger king.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 10:05 AM by Illahee

So will the 10% increase in gun sales right now because of the proposed upcoming bans result in more of a bloodbath than expected?

Some estimates are as high as 7.2 million armed conflicts will result from the attempt to ban and take away arms. I had heard it was about half that.

What is the current thought?

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 10:45 AM by Finn1916

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it impossible for Obama to do anything other than sign a bill or veto it when president? He can rant and rave al he wants but without congressional approva, he can't ban anything.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 10:53 AM by vor78

reply to post by Finn1916

That's true, but its also not a problem whatsoever. There are a large number of Democrats in both houses of Congress who are pushing gun control measures. HR 1022, for instance, has 67 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives...all Democrats. And certainly, there are enough RINOs in the northeast and on the west coast who would go right along with it. Even during Bush's first term, the Republicans really only had 40 or so solid pro-gun votes in the Senate.

He would have no problems whatsoever getting gun control measures through Congress, especially now.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:05 AM by Finn1916

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Finn1916

That's true, but its also not a problem whatsoever. There are a large number of Democrats in both houses of Congress who are pushing gun control measures. HR 1022, for instance, has 67 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives...all Democrats. And certainly, there are enough RINOs in the northeast and on the west coast who would go right along with it. Even during Bush's first term, the Republicans really only had 40 or so solid pro-gun votes in the Senate.

He would have no problems whatsoever getting gun control measures through Congress, especially now.

In that case, if Mccain was elected and he did not sign off on the anti gun bills, the house and senate could just over rule him since the dems are in power there anyway. So basically it doenst' matter who is president as far as gun rights go.

Personally if i was the leader of a country and planned on screwing the people(i'm poining fingers at both mccain an obama) i would want to disarm them. It doesn't matter who is in power, they al want to take our rights away slowly, cause a dictatorship would be so much easier to run.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:13 AM by vor78

reply to post by Finn1916

I disagree. The Dems would need a 2/3rds majority in order to override a McCain veto in the chamber in which the bill originated. I strongly doubt they could get it in the House, and its quite unlikely in the Senate as well.

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 >> ^^TOP^^