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.

 

Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession!

page: 13
30
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Then in my educated opinion, I think you're full of c*ap and should go back to school and read your history. On top of that, it is my educated opinion that you stop trying to play stupid psychology mind games since you honestly don't KNOW anybody here, what they believe in, how they think, what they really are fighting for etc. and it is in my educated opinion that you get your head out of the clouds and get off that "mightier than thou" pillar that you decided to put yourself in.

If you think that your comments above would've made any well known psychologist proud because you "figured us out" then think again. You failed miserably and any psychologist worth his salt would say that you jumped the gun way too soon and rather than really getting to know your "patients" you just made an A** out of yourself with wild speculation and assumptions of people's characters.

Do yourself a favor and stop making stupid comments unless you enjoy making yourself look stupid.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


OH NOES! I LOOKS LIKES A TERRORISTS!!! GASPS!!!!

Give me a break KID, you know nothing about me or what I mean by that phrase, and it shows that you have an OBVIOUS lacking grasp in history. Yes, I'm sure I SOUND like a terrorist. The founding fathers of this country WERE ALSO considered TERRORISTS since they were originally subjects of the british crown. That didn't stop them from doing what was RIGHT.!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Do you mean automatic, or semi-automatic. There is a difference.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Your educated opinion? I think its time that you lay down the books and stare at what you call "reality"
The reality here is this..The only people 'allowed' to carry automatic weapons are law enforcement and our military. Citizens have never been able to have automatic weapons, and I dont hear anyone crying about them taking their automatic weapons away because THEY DONT HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, so they dont care about the automatic weapons.
If you want to look at the bigger picture here then you need to realize that this is only one more step for them to have tighter control on ALL GUNS.
This isnt about just automatic weapons like you think it is, and for being a 'educated' person, I thought that you would have known that by now.

Remember the clinton gun ban era? Those werent machine guns, or automatic rifles he went after, they were regular firearms that everyday americans carry around. The guns that came out of that era were complete crap. So to say that all they want to do is take away "automatic weapons' is pure crap, and if you believe in it, you are a lot less educated then you make yourself out to be.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


You want the state to have absolute and unlimited power?
If taking down tyrants make me a terrorist, I would rather be a terrorist than lose my freedom.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
reply to post by Question
 




What purpose do they serve? To kill tyrants, like our govt.



Now this is scary and there is noting scarier than reality. Truth is stranger than fiction. You just proved my entire point in one sentence. You want to kill our government? What does that mean? You sound like a terrorist. Do you see that?

Do you now understand why it's a very good idea to ban automatic weapons? This person is only one of hundreds of millions.

How many members does the NRA have? If they are all like this, I am rightly concerned.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Excitable_Boy]


You really trust the government that much?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by memory_nuke]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
reply to post by XTexan
 




And judging by the way you mix and swap the terms full-auto and semi-auto


I never used either term. Could you show me where I did? Thanks.


Well, sure I can... since you asked so nicely

Your 1st post:

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
You know, I am sick of the gun crazed people in the US. Sick of it. No one wants to ban guns. It's the automatic weapons that serve no purpose...

Why do you need automatic weapons?...


Your 2nd post:

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

My tirade? LMAO. Why do you need automatic weapons?...

I had friends that were into assault weapons. They would buy junk cars on the weekend, take them to a field and set them up so they could drive around in a circle and they would get drunk, do drugs and shoot the crap out of the cars with their much needed automatic weapons. Is this what you need them for? Is this the precious right of yours that someone is trying to take away?


Well you see that there? In your first post? You said automatic weapons, so technically, no, you didn't use the term full-auto. However the terms are synonomous, I'm sure you know that though...

You then go on in your 2nd post to use the terms assault weapons and automatic weapons to describe the same guns that your friends have. Thats not incorrect however the term assault weapons covers more than just full-autos.

Thats why I asked if you were talking about full-autos or semi-autos... and you said neither...



Are you afraid you won't be able to defend yourself with a more traditional weapon? You need lots of bullets per second because you can't aim and fire a single shot and make it count? Just curious....
[edit on 6-5-2009 by Excitable_Boy]


You keep asking why I NEED a full-auto, well buddy I never said I did! Would you care to point out where I did?

If your arguement is against full-autos THEY ARE ALREADY licensed and regulated. You can't get one legally without ATF approval.

If your arguement is against scarey looking semi-autos them please make that clear so I can tell you how your wrong



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Tentickles
 


We have never had 'the right to bear arms' so it could never have been taken away from us.

However, I fully understand your stance and that of the majority of US citizens over this.
It is your constitutional right and something that is part of the 'American psyche'.


It goes beyond the psyche although much of the gun thing in the US is part of the landscape.

The original american philosophical ideas behind individual arms are tied directly into the rights of man body of revolutionary political/social thinking that gave birth to the US.

But it also has a practical application in protecting the republic by insuring that armed citizens could assemble and fight off enemies foreign and domestic. Individual gun rights are necessary for this maintenance should the need arise to augment continental armies raised to defend from invaders or to fight domestic armies raised against the citizenry.

So you see any motions made by our leaders toward outside governments or collection of governments or motions made by our government toward its own people that suggest an infringement of the right is in fact treason pure and simple. They are also motions the american people are not bound to respect constitutionally thus philosophically.

Any american official elected or otherwise that even speaks of a possible day when the american citizens will be disarmed for any reason while abroad should be fired or impeached and taken into custody and charged with treason upon his return to the US. On this one issue alone the entire Clinton presidency was a farce as well as the gathering of senators and representatives in congress were a farcical and contemptible assembly of constitutional miscreants operating under pretense, violating the oath, and called into order with contempt for the people in their hearts.

But you can see how far our leaders have drifted away. They are leading our people into the firm jaws of tyranny.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Logarock]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dsm1664

The most dangerous people on this planet are the insecure.


Yes the most dangerous people on earth are insecure governments that loath to protect and secure the rights of the people.

Tyrants find security in knowing they are the only ones armed.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cauch1
reply to post by SJE98
 

How about you get over yourself you fool
. No I am not American but I understand the general idea behind the 2nd amendment enough to be able to talk about it rationally. This is an open discussion and I will not be told that I am not allowed in it.

-Cauch1


A lot of american have forgotten or simply dont know due to it being irrelevant to a public educational curriculum that is geared toward making american students philosophically neutered about...well many things, that most of the great thinkers that helped forge the american revolutionary ideas were European, English and French thinkers. Tom Jefferson had a large library of European free thinkers from which he gave espousal at regular meetings for years before the revolution.

And that our constitution was largely based on the framework of Willie Orange and the Hillbillies and that the American Revolution was the culmination of many steps foreword in this direction taken in England and other parts of Europe over several centuries before 1776. That it was under the conditions present in the colonies that this pot was able to boil over fully.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Logarock]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by cliffjumper68
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


That being said over the years the supreme court has ruled consistently that the government may tax and license guns as much as it wants as long as it is not a total ban. So, if you tax a 100K per gun with a 3 year license process that might take longer, that is not a total ban. How many people can afford the taxes?


These Supreme Court ruling even without the intention of being restrictive are restrictive if a person is a purist i.e. that a constitutionally guaranteed right, and thats what a gun is, cannot be taxed any more than the exercise of free speech.

Taxes that become restrictive to this right are an impediment to the exercise of the right as would be a restrictive tax on ammunition. So taxes could be challenged on that basis.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by XTexan
 




You keep asking why I NEED a full-auto, well buddy I never said I did! Would you care to point out where I did?



I never said you need full-auto. Show me AGIAN where I used the term full-auto.

You all keep playing with your Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just don't lie about why you want them. Tell the truth.

And if you all are like the guy that said he wants to "kill our government" then I think the United States has more to worry about from within and from its own citizens than it has to worry about from any other country.

Peace to all you cool gun people!




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


It is good and refreshing to see that not all American's are ignorant of history pre-1776 or that from outside of the American continent.

I do understand the original reasons why 'The Right To Bear Arms' is a constitutional right and respect your resistance to any efforts to take that away.

However, I don't think it would be right for the UK, especially in the current climate!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Nobody is lieing as to why they need them. You are just playing stupid mind games and making stupid assumptions because you want to appear to be "mightier than thou" when in reality you know nothing about the people here.

Goodbye to you, and good riddance.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Did you even read my post??? The one where I pointed out that you used the term "automatic weapons" which is SYNONOMOUS with "full-auto"? Obviously you haven't made it past 6th grade since you don't seem to understand that.

I'm not going to show you AGAIN where you used the term, its in the post I posted on 7-5-2009 @ 00:20...

And now your calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction...

Come back and visit after you graduate from high school you little excitable boy


[edit on 7-5-2009 by XTexan]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 



Well you guys are long settled in without it. Whatever the case may be with that one way or another, it is safe to say the the US will suffer all manner of major trauma if strong attempts to remove the right are put into motion. Signs of suppression of the right are seen instantly as a major symptom that our government has gone south.

Efforts to dislodge this right have been a decades long psychological tug of war here. Its a war with many fronts.

One I would like to mention is the effort made in TV and movies. Not a day goes by for many that the image of a police officer or someone telling somebody to "drop the gun" is seen or heard on TV of movies. I personally believe that the proliferation of police shows on tv in this country for years have been part of an overall mind war against the public and the promotion of a police state. Or the nurturing of a "protector" class in our society. They have even brainwashed many cops into this game and frustrated others.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Logarock]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
What scares me more than some of the pro gun advocates is the fact that the guns they so fervently cling to while exercising their "right" to bear arms will still be around when they are all dead and gone. Rather selfish and short-sided IMO.



Guns last for many years, and are frequently recycled between conflicts or crimes
• In West Africa, guns have moved from conflict to conflict in the last ten years, fuelling overlapping and
uncontained conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia and most recently Côte d'Ivoire.
• Another example: the exact same gun used in a murder in Kentucky, USA in 1967 was used in another
murder 36 years later, in 2003.


www.iansa.org...

The International Action Network on Small Arms is a commendable global organization
working to raise awareness on gun violence comprised of over 800 organizations in over 120 countries.

www.iansa.org...

I encourage everyone to edify themselves.

Regards...KK





[edit on 7-5-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Here is the press conference with Obama and Calderón back on April 16th. I posted a piece of the Q&A where Obama states that he has no immediate intention of reinstating the assault weapon ban and wishes to protect the rights of hunters, and gun owners. I think the claim that Obama and the Dems want to take our guns away is a rumor started by the GOP. There has been little or no evidence that they are going to take anyones guns away and I think most realize the logisitical nightmare it would be to even attempt it. Not too mention that it is political suicide.

I think everyone should calm down until some actual legislation is proposed.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...



Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President, as well. President Obama, as a candidate for your office, you said that you wanted to see the assault ban weapon -- the ban on assault weapons reinstated. Your attorney general has spoken in favor of this. Mexican officials have also spoken in favor of it. But we haven't heard you say that since you took office. Do you plan to keep your promise? And if not, how do you explain that to the American people?

And, President Calderón -- I'm sorry, if I may -- would you like to see this ban reinstated? And have you raised that today with President Obama? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, we did discuss this extensively in our meetings. I have not backed off at all from my belief that the gun -- the assault weapons ban made sense.

And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the 2nd Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well.

Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop.

And so our focus is to work with Secretary Napolitano, Atty. Gen. Holder, our entire Homeland Security team, ATF, border security, everybody who is involved in this, to coordinate with our counterparts in Mexico to significantly ramp up our enforcement of existing laws.

And in fact, I've asked Eric Holder to do a complete review of how our enforcement operations are currently working and make sure that we're cutting down on the loopholes that are resulting in some of these drug trafficking problems.

The last point I would make is that there are going to be some opportunities where I think we can build some strong consensus. I'll give you one example, and that is the issue of gun tracing. The tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information that have been used in major crimes -- that's information that we are still not giving to law enforcement, as a consequence of provisions that have been blocked in the United States Congress, and those are the areas where I think that we can make some significant progress early.

That doesn’t mean that we're steering away from the issue of the assault guns ban, but it does mean that we want to act with urgency, promptly, now. And I think we can make significant progress.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: Thank you for your question. I want to say that, in effect, on this topic -- not only on this topic, but on many of the other thorny topics of relations between the U.S. and Mexico, we have had an open, frank, trusting conversation between President Obama and myself. We have spoken of assault weapons. He is well aware of our problems.

And we have described it as it is from the moment that the prohibition on the sale of assault weapons [expired] a few years ago, we have seen an increase in the power of organized crime in Mexico. Only in my administration, in the two years and four months, we have been able to see -- or rather we have seized more than 16,000 assault weapons.

And in the efforts we have made to track their origin -- and President Obama has referred to that -- we have seen that nearly 90% of those arms comes from the United States -- those weapons come from the United States. There are about 10,000 sales points on the U.S.-Mexico border -- only at the border.

On the other hand, I do believe that our relationship -- the new era we must build in our relationship between Mexico and the United States -- must be one with trust and respect. And we definitely respect the decision of the U.S. Congress and of the U.S. people in this regard, because they are very well aware of President Obama and his government's willingness to move forward on these issues.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by impressme
 


.... I think the claim that Obama and the Dems want to take our guns away is a rumor started by the GOP. There has been little or no evidence that they are going to take anyones guns away and I think most realize the logisitical nightmare it would be to even attempt it. Not too mention that it is political suicide.

I think everyone should calm down until some actual legislation is proposed.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...


"And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the 2nd Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well".




Does anyone see whats being said here? Its in the definition. The guy thinks hes a word smith but many have learned to translate this language long ago.

Anyone? Take a crack at it. Your liberty will depend on it.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
What scares me more than some of the pro gun advocates is the fact that the guns they so fervently cling to while exercising their "right" to bear arms will still be around when they are all dead and gone. Rather selfish and short-sided IMO.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by kinda kurious]



Your view is certainly a global one my friend.

What I would like to still be around when I am dead and gone is an intact Bill of Rights in this country. We dont cling to our guns we cling to our rights.

So you are scared and we are selfish and short sighted? Nice little picture painting there.

How dare those stupid rebels suggest something so outlandish as to allow the common citizenry to fancy himself a defender of his own rights! It does what its told! It puts the lotion on its skin! It heals under to our authority! Let them eat cake, pay taxes and keep silent.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join