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.

 

No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'


www.worldnetdaily.com

A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.worldnetdaily.com
wnd.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Michael Savage sues DHS over rightwing extremism report
DHS 10 Page Memo on Rightwing extremists
Report: US is ripe for recruiting by extremists



[edit on 5/9/2009 by Champagne]




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Ok, I searched for another thread on this particular topic but this story was released today 5/9/09....

That being said, I am extremely concerned as I am in the market for my first gun & am quite sure I fit the so-called description of 'Domestic Terrorist".

Now, I would hate to 'go underground' to buy my first weapon. But I WILL do what I must to arm myself before the SHTF!! Suggestions on what a person, with my financial difficulties, can do about this??





www.worldnetdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/9/2009 by Champagne]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
LOL The best thing to do, is to buy a gun 2nd-hand while you still can.

That is face-to-face with the seller. It is the only way to avoid getting your name and fingerprints on a list. Unless it is different in places outside of Oregon...

Well, my point still remains. Buying a used weapon would be more affordable, and keep you off Gov't lists. But get it quick, they are trying to ban the ability for citizens to sell to citizens.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Yep, this is how the Homeland Security ``terrorist list`` will kick in.

All of you, constitutionalists, Ron Paul and Bob Barr supporters, alternative medias, anti-illegal immigration, sovereign citizens, anti-tax movement, militia members, anti-abortion, veterans and real pro-environment people, will lose your second amendment right.

And this is in addition of HR45, the CIPTA treaty and the marking of bullets.

They are hitting us on all sides. They really want to get our second amendment. Tyranny is on the march.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Well, whilst I'm personally not keen on gun ownership or seeing any kind of 'extremist' armed, this invariably never stops where it's started; function creep is an inevitability. Whilst it starts with right-wing extremists it will eventually end with other demographics, if not with everyone.

The same with the definition of 'criminal' and 'terrorist'; it's staggering how the definition of both these things has crept over the last decade or so. Is it possible to not be a potential criminal or a terrorist these days?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Well, whilst I'm personally not keen on gun ownership or seeing any kind of 'extremist' armed, this invariably never stops where it's started; function creep is an inevitability.


So.................how do YOU describe 'any kind of extremist'??





[edit on 5/9/2009 by Champagne]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostNemesis
LOL The best thing to do, is to buy a gun 2nd-hand while you still can.

That is face-to-face with the seller. It is the only way to avoid getting your name and fingerprints on a list. Unless it is different in places outside of Oregon...

Well, my point still remains. Buying a used weapon would be more affordable, and keep you off Gov't lists. But get it quick, they are trying to ban the ability for citizens to sell to citizens.



there are very limited registration and licensing laws in our nation

however these are different for each state , and each one is quite unique so make sure you check yours out carefully

en.wikipedia.org...(by_state)

keep in mind federal gun laws as well which affect all states (maybe? lol)
en.wikipedia.org...


imo get a shotgun

handguns almost always have tons of laws surrounding them



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Champagne

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Well, whilst I'm personally not keen on gun ownership or seeing any kind of 'extremist' armed, this invariably never stops where it's started; function creep is an inevitability.


So.................how do YOU describe 'any kind of extremist'??





[edit on 5/9/2009 by Champagne]



well i certainly think that someone with no prior felony record that attempts to get a gun through legal means does not act like a "dangerous extremist"

where i grew up "dangerous extremists" had felony records and collected weapons illegally through theft or other means

seems like two totally different types of personality there



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Champagne
So.................how do YOU describe 'any kind of extremist'??


[edit on 5/9/2009 by Champagne]


Papists, enemies of King George, the French, the Irish poor... [/18th C.]

There lies the rub, as I mentioned in the rest of the post you quoted, much of this rests on definition and, unfortunately for us, we're not the ones who decide who is and who isn't an extremist, criminal or terrorist. Even if we're in agreement that those who do decide are wrong, will the rest of us agree amongst ourselves?

I'm in no way in support of this, merely pointing out that, in this situation, governments will always - in someone's eyes - be seen to have made the wrong judgement.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Merriman Weir]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Before we get ourselves too worked up about this story, let's remember that this is World Net Daily that we're talking about here that's breaking this story.

Not particularly known for well thought out or researched journalism.

I'm more than willing to accept that even the shadiest of media outlets can sometimes have glimmers of truth revolving around the mire, but my suspicious flag has been raised a bit.



AB1



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
This is typical Democratic politics. Every time they get in the y have gun trade ins, bans and stricter purchase policies. In a few years they will tick everyone off, a Republican will get in and the cyrcle will reverse, it always does.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
This is typical Democratic politics. Every time they get in the y have gun trade ins, bans and stricter purchase policies. In a few years they will tick everyone off, a Republican will get in and the cyrcle will reverse, it always does.


Surely that's typical 'two party politics', rather than any real Democratic issue? As long as a country is tied, to all intents and purposes, to only two options, they only possibility is to swing from one to the other every now and again; sometimes changing what happened and other times adding to it.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
"known or suspected dangerous terrorist."

The initiative would be easier to support if they removed the words "or suspected"

Those two simple words leave open a lot of room as anyone can be labeled a suspect, usually with little or no evidence. Anyone for any reason can be targeted.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
This is getting annoying now

Every worldnetdaily thread there's some lazy person saying don't forget this is wdn as a source.

PLEASE USE GOOGLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

HERE YOU GO
turnerradionetwork.com...

That's an image for the bill text
Read it!
hover over it, then wait for a box to appear at the bottom then click on it
the image will enlarge itself for you to read

It's okay to be judgemental over WND, but then at least do your research instead of making a post about it



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by secretagent woooman
 



Originally posted by secretagent woooman
This is typical Democratic politics. Every time they get in the y have gun trade ins, bans and stricter purchase policies. In a few years they will tick everyone off, a Republican will get in and the cyrcle will reverse, it always does.


Except that Peter King is a Republican. And from what I know of him, a good man. It would surprise me if he put forth any legislation to jeapordize the rights of innocent people.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
it seems that every now and then that a post comes up that talks about the government taking peoples weapons away from them. of course this has not happened. every time a democrat gets into office, he is labeled as a president that wants to take away peoples right to own arms. this was the mantra during bill clintons presidency, and this is what is being said about obamas presidency. if the government comes out and says that you can no longer buy hundreds of guns without having a legitimate business that requires that, i'm all for it, and i'm a gun owner. if a private citizen buys 50 m-16 rifles, i would like the government to know why. there has to be critical thinking skills applied here folks. there are many gangs and groups that i WOULD NOT want to have these weapons.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Excuse me, let's not do 2 things here.

#1 let's not attack me because, typically speaking, I was correct, they don't have a knack for reading and reporting what is necessarily truth.

#2 let us not assume that I haven't read the bill. I have, It's a broad scope bill, that doesn't reflect the title of this thread. It's not declaring that a "right-wing" anything is denied from anything at all. Simply terrorists.


So, why dont you point out to me where I have missed shall we?

Show me where any mention of right-wing anything is in that bill, and I will be happy to concede, but fair warning, I have read the bill many times. That said, if you think NOT denying firearms to terrorists is a bad thing, then I simply can't and won't respond because it's a losing battle anyway.



AB1



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


okay, so then google
then comment on discrepancies

how's that sound?

Listen, i'm not attacking you, I just see this way too often
people attacking the source
then I google and find a more "reputable" source within seconds

it just happens too often

what about instead of your original post I commented on earlier
you googled, posted the link I posted
and commented on discrepancies
wouldn't that make your post more 'worthy'???



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Seriously, I think I must be slow because I'm not following you.

Simply because I stated my opinion on the efficacy of World Net Daily, and why I don't think we should rush to draw any conclusions based up that opinion, I dont see how that is tantamount to not knowing, having read, and understanding the Bill as it's written.

You made an assumtion, that I hadn't read it prior to posting, I'm telling you I already had many times.

So, back on-topic, I still would like to hear some proof that my original assertion (nothing about right-wing denial of firearms to anyone because that IS the title of this thread) has any roots or merit?




AB1



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Here's the proof:

HR2159

Really disgusting. And all ATS members are terrorists according to DHS.

If this passes, 90% of the non-sheeple will be disarmed.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Vitchilo]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join