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 to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:09 PM
So let me get this straight.... Its ok for mexico to send drugs here, but the second a couple of guns go south now we have to give up our God given right to own ar15s and high capacity mags? Even if they reinact the weapons ban it will have no impact on illegal guns.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7

Originally posted by RE2505
For what purpose do you feel you need to be able to legally own assault weapons anyway? I'm in the UK and thank god for a complete ban on guns here.

Yeah, we know you do

UK is knife crime capital

Britian and Aus top US in violent crime

Did you read the related link?

Pupils sent to school in body armor

Guess where? In jolly ol' England!
I thought with the lovely gun ban working like a charm why are parents buying body armor for their kids to go to school? They are not doing that here in the US! What is wrong with this picture?

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:24 PM
My father owns a gun store here in Alabama and we have seen record sales since the election and now some manufactors are telling us they have 18 month backorders.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:34 PM
Lets see how great it is in England with their gun ban:

400 victims of knife crime per week

You have a better chance of getting stabbed or robbed at knife point then getting hit by a car in London. How lovely! Wouldn't it be great if you could pull a 5.7 or a .45 right in their face and say, no no no?

yeesh! When will the Obamacons and Dumb-ocrats learn that these "gun bans" don't do diddly squat nowadays to crime. England's ban is a huge failure.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:15 PM
The Bill of Rights lists Inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are natrual rights. Natural rights are rights possessed by persons and are not Civil rights. Civil rights are granted, given, guaranteed, conferred, codified, controlled by the government. Inalienable rights are rights endowed by a persons creator.

Militia was at the time of the Revolutionary War all able bodied males over 18. First they were citizens of the thirteen original colonies. Second they were unwilling subjects of the British Empire. Third they were husbands, fathers, sons who owned an arm and used the arm for feeding family and self defense. Fourth they were voluntary members of the Militia. Fifth they were fighting to throw off the yoke of the British Empire.

Keep means, how the arm is possessed, stored, secured.
Bear means how the arm is held, carried, transported, possessed on ones self, or otherwise.
Arm is means for self defense, weapon, firearm.

Shall not be infringed means no law, condition, regulation, class requirement, fee, background check, permit or other infringement on KEEP AND BEAR clause. Infringement takes the form of magazine capacity limits, AWB, safety locks, ammunition taxes, gun free zones, and other creative infringements on the inalienable right to keep and bar arms.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:20 PM
Not sure if this was posted or not as I don't have time to read the entire thread but...

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”....

Wow.....Where's the punch line.

(opps, forgot the link)

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Tyr Sog]

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by GenRadek
Lets see how great it is in England with their gun ban:

400 victims of knife crime per week

You have a better chance of getting stabbed or robbed at knife point then getting hit by a car in London. How lovely! Wouldn't it be great if you could pull a 5.7 or a .45 right in their face and say, no no no?

yeesh! When will the Obamacons and Dumb-ocrats learn that these "gun bans" don't do diddly squat nowadays to crime. England's ban is a huge failure.

Don't worry, the UK will probably ban "assault" knives soon. You know, the kind with points and sharp edges?

This will sound harsh, and I try to be polite whenever possible, but maybe this is the only way i can explain it: We're trying to explain liberty and freedom to a people who have never truly had it. Its like describing COLOR to someone BORN BLIND. It is a difficult concept for some to grasp. I do not say that to insult anyone. There are English here on ATS who have expressed their anger at having their freedoms removed, but others who think it is for their safety.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:40 PM
Inalienable means the Right can not be alienated from the person in possession of the right.

Infringement pertains to secondary of fringe issues regarding arms.

Shall not be infringed.

The primary or core issue here is the arm. Outright confiscation would be a disaster and the framers of Bill of Rights knew this.

There are now a couple of dozen secondary issues which are on the fringes of the primary issue of possessing arms.

The fringe issues are magazine capacity, rate of fire, appearance, carrying open or concealed, qualifications to own and carry, transportation , storage, availability, locking devices, safety issues, hunting seasons, cost and availability of ammunition to name a few.

The infringement upon the keeping and bearing of arms was launched with the 1968 federal gun law. Infringement has been weaving a web upon this God given and God infused right since then.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Pappie54
There are guns designed for personal protection and some are designed for assault. We don't need assault weapons on the streets and I'm all for this. My wife packs and I don't see where this will hurt her right to do so.

Poopie54, do you remember when John Dilinger, Clyde Barrow, Bonnie Parker, and then the days when Legs Diamond, Alfonse Capone, Vinnie "the chin" Gigante were kicking the feds butts?

It took a long time before the cops finally got a clue as to why they were getting their butts kicked. Then they realized, you don't take on guys using thompson machine guns with a 45. G-issue handgun.

The tide quickly turned when cops decided to get what the bad guys had.

Here you might think this is interesting. Webs/HOW_YA_LIKE_IT_IN_HELL_CHO.html

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:21 PM
My god some people truly scare me...

I've been skimming through these past 13 some pages and all I read is: you can't take my guns!, if I want an assault rifle I'll buy one, you can take my guns from my cold dead body... sheesh

It kind of makes me wonder. Has the United States become a criminal-infested hole? Do you need to sit on your porch every night with a loaded shotgun, to keep the villains out? Do people try to kill you family on a day to day basis or something?

'Oh but what if Afghanistan or Iraq decides to invade us?' Isn't that kind of what an army is for? When somebody actually succeeds at invading the US, don't you think you should let the army handle things. You know, they're trained for it and all...

And the whole martial law thing. Let's say it happens, do you really think you can hold back a team of trained police/army/whatever dudes?

Oh and don't give me that 'it's my constitutional right' crap. When was the constitution written? Last time I checked we kind of made a little progress since then. Things change, deal with it.

However, the whole 'it's for the sake of Mexico' thing is a pretty stupid excuse. Obama should just say it as it is. Why oh why do you need assault rifles? To take out military personnel, SWAT teams, roaming bands of superpower comic book heroes?

Some of you sound like you're mankinds last hope when the apocalyps hits

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:23 PM
And do you know the reason why they are using Mexico as an excuse? To conquer it. That is what Obama is ultimately trying to do, form a supreme government ruled by him that stretches across the globe. But why Mexico? It's simple really, by sending US soldiers in, claiming that they are there to shut down the cartels and stabilize the political climate, he is circumventing all of the issues that may occur if he just charged in right now. Only the armed citizenry can stop the Boy Scouts from becoming the Obama Youth, only the armed citizenry can stop the Pledge of Allegiance changing from swearing loyalty to America to Obama, and only the armed citizenry can stop the new Fuhrer from emergin.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by Toolbox

Unfortunately we are mankinds last hope in an apocalypse. Yes we will defend ourselves and family as well as friends. Yes we will rebuild a new world out of the ashes. [Which by the way is a good series by William Johnstone] And yes we will also fight for your pansy A#$$.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:31 PM
Come and get my guns Obama. Just remember.... I have the same training your goons do.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by Toolbox

That's fine, but the next time that someone brings up the Patriot Act or some other infringement of your rights, I don't want to hear any whining from you. Afterall, things have changed since the Constitution was written. Your right to privacy is now secondary to the need to protect our citizens.

Your 1st amendment rights? They only apply so long as they are not detrimental to the goals of the US government. Dissent should be stamped out if it does not conform to the goals of society as determined by our (s)elected leaders.

See how that works? As I stated earlier, one day, they will come for a right that YOU cherish and someone will be making a similar argument as yours as to why its necessary for the 'greater good'.

You either stand up for the all of your rights under the Constitution or none of them. There's no room for a middle ground.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:48 PM
I have a much better Idea. Instead of hacking, chopping, blotting out, and burning the constitution piece by piece, why don't they just secure the damn border? If it's about stopping the flow of guns into Mexico (Which is a joke within itself) That way, we wouldn't have to deal with illegal aliens bringing drugs, violence, and identity theft, and heinous lawsuits against our citizens (The case where Roger Barnett, an Arizona Rancher, was forced to pay a group of illegal aliens nearly $78,000 for holding them at gunpoint when finding them trespassing on his property. I'm sure you're all familiar with this one). It makes me wonder how these people were put in charge of making decisions they are clearly not intellectually equipped to make.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:55 PM
They can have all the gun laws they want! Who in their right mind would actually try to collect them all?

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by vor78

how true- i couldn't have said it better. and when they come for my ak-47 will i die? yep. but gauranteed i won't be the only one. i WILL fight for my rights. maybe we should just get rid of the constitution altogether and just take it in the a##- which seems to be what alot of people want

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:02 PM
I am glad he is banning them, Hopefully the next step will be to ban ALL firearms. After he removes the 2nd amendment from the Constitution he can go after the first amendment.

Most likely after those are gone, the constitution itself will be thrown out.

MAYBE, and I say MAYBE then people will wake up to whats going on and pull out all the "gear" they hid during the confiscations and we can finally
get this party started.

The federal government WILL NOT back off stealing our liberties till they are all gone and we are subjects of the state.

I feel that the only way to get our power back is to take it by force.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:18 PM
The Federal Government is showing itself to be irrelevant. They do not have the manpower to even try to confiscate any firearms from a citizenry who says NO! More and more states understand that it's time to take back the power we have surrendered to the corporate sell-outs in D.C.

It's time to make the penalty for this type of attempted treason by anyone sworn to uphold the Constitution, severe. Start taking names and remember the sellouts come election time.

Disenfranchisement breeds contempt. Viva la rEVOLution!

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:20 PM
Prohibition was at a time where MORE people were law abiding than now. And it failed. Like prohibition, guns will never leave its place in true American society

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in