It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama's Chief of Staff: Make No-Fly List a No-Gun List

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by whatukno
That should garner a nice lawsuit by the ACLU.

The ACLU may (and I mean maybe) file a lawsuit against the NO-FLY list.
But they will never do anything to defend the second amendment. They are as much against private gun ownership as the new scum administration now inhabiting D.C.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Wehali
No civilian should be allowed to carry fire arms, under any circumstances..
That includes hunting, shooting animals for sport is a barbaric tradition that
has no place in a civilized world.

So... Are we not even allowed to even if we want to eat the animal afterward? That's a bit excessive all things considered. And if that's a barbaric tradition (I'd like to know your opinion on the suffering of the animal if gets killed by another animal), then I dread to think what you make of the meat industry. I think it's probably less barbaric to shoot the animal (that has lived in the wild, even if it's still farmed, eg game birds) than keep it bolted up in a shed for all it's life so it never sees the sun.

And as to other uses of weaponry, well, it can always happen some other way. We regularly seem to get some news of someone being stabbed here in the uk, or even, in rarer cases, shot despite a near total gun ban (incidentally, I seem to remember that the guns used weren't the shotguns (the easier to get a hold of legally, at the moment) either). Just a couple weeks ago someone went on a killing spree with a knife, so I hardly think it is a fair viewpoint to say that guns are the root of all civilian violence.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:49 PM
For elite Ivy league educated people, they are morons w/out any common sense.

Simple fact....take away legal guns which can be traced if used in a crime and people prosecuted, People buy illegal guns of which are a much ddeadlier threat. Fully auto and untraceable.

Tell them to do the math.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:54 AM
Totally agree wit hthe OP on this.

In australia we had the port arthur massacre (staged massacre) allowing guns to be taken, and it didn't do anything to make the place safe. All it did was make criminals who don't abide by the laws have weapons while taking the guns from those who do have guns for legit reasons and for defending themselves.

It's just another attempt at grabbing power. They are testing you and poking at your defenses to see where you are weak. Don't budge.

If you say yes to anything, they will see that as a sign of weakness and like a pushy door salesman, who see his persuasion actually working, will push harder and harder for more things until he reaches his limit on how far he can take it.

To critics of gun owners who just want to keep their rights, maturity has nothing to do with it. Your rights should exist regardless of if a government acknowledges them or not. In principle if you attack someone with intent to kill, you should be allowed to defend yourself. Different people have different ideas about what defence is. But if a person can defend himself the criminal will see the increased risk and be deterred from trying anything against the person they intend to rob steal or kill. And what you get is an even playing field. ("armed robber" vs "armed defender of property" instead of "robber who has illegally acquired weapons" vs "defender who must be held at gunpoint")

We all know that nukes by their very nature are weapons of mass destruction and we would feel better off if these had never existed, but the reality is they do exist and we have to understand that it would be unreasonable to truly disarm them all so long as the threat of people who might secretly have them uses it and attacks with intent to just murder people. (as opposed to being forced into having it for defence during say a war which you have no choice but to fight in as a way to defend the land or the people) The even-playing-field was MAD (mutually assured destruction) and it resulted in both sides actually not being able to prevent their deaths however, the "threat of dying" was what made people too scared to actually use it. It deterred both from trying to use them because the risk was too great.

Same applies with any weapons. If you have even a small reason to believe a criminal; who doesn't hand in their guns to the government and who has acquired theirs illegally, will possess them, ..then it stands to reason that a person who isn't a criminal or murderer and who does follow laws, should also be allowed to have one. It's not about saying "killing is justified" or that "life isn't precious", just that it's better to put innocent people and criminals on an "even playing field" to create the deterrent for the criminal so he will think twice about trying anything, just as MAD forced both sides to have to think twice about using their nukes.

A non-violent person doesn't have to condone the usage of guns to understand why the right to have them is still better than not having a right to have them. You can still say: "I personally abhor violent means to solving problems" but.."yet I support the right for a person to defend themselves."

If a criminal uses martial arts training to snap your neck.
You should be allowed to use it for self-defence.

If a criminal uses knives to stab.
You should be allowed to carry a knife to deter that attacker.

If a criminal uses a club to bash.
You should be able to club them back.

Do you understand the principle? It's not really about the weapon. It's the "right to defend" yourself.

If we still used swords and guns hadn't been invented yet, you could still use this same argument and it would make sense. Stop focusing on the guns (the type of weapon) themselves. Start understanding the principles behind it and why it isn't fair to expect people to not be allowed to defend themselves and give up their rights based on some irrational emotions they feel about the object used by criminals.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by Snake Plisskin]

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:08 AM

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by illusionincarnate

i don't know whats going on in belgium wahali, but criminals will not obey the law. if all guns were outlawed, what kind of impact do you think that would have? law abiding individuals would be left to the whim of psychopaths, who would still have guns. if a foreign or domestic enemy marched across your land, killing, raping, and looting, what would you do? nothing but die in a work camp. that's if they just don't execute you and dump you in a ditch.

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:18 AM
It's amazing how everything just falls into place, isn't it? The administration is now in place to remove all rights from America, once again using fear as the big mover. The difference between the towers crashing and the flu? I can't see any. Both times, the biggest threat to arise out of the situation is the internal one, capitalizing on whatever chaos they can whip up within the population.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by illusionincarnate]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in