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: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Please..... don't ever post "World Nut Daily" as breaking news again..

There isn't even anything in this about "right wing" terrorist...




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Well DONE you liberals, Democrats and Obama supporters!! Well DONE!!

You were so busy droning on about how you thought Bush stomped all over the Constitution that you didn't stop to think what the far-left would do when put into power. Well, here you go. You get exactly what you deserve, except your inept decision making has this time punished ALL OF US.

If you voted Democrat this past election, I sincerely hope you are regretting that decision right about now, knowing that you are most likely flagged as an "extremist" just for being a part of ATS. And if you aren't regretting that decision, then maybe you're just too UNINTELLIGENT to understand.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I wonder,

If it would be possible just for once, when a Bill comes into the eyes of the public, that they could look a little further than their party lines when making an assessment of it??

I've asked the question 3 times or more, and still no response, where is there ANY mention other than dangerous terrorists not being able to get transfers of firearms that would suggest this is a partisan issue?

Anyone with one single point of that Bill as a reference would do....



AB1

[edit on 9-5-2009 by alphabetaone]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
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

Edit: Found the bill in the library of congress.. here it is..
H.R. 2159

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Miraj]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Miraj]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
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


H.R. 2159 - Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009

Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009

Bill Denies Guns to POTENTIAL "terrorists"

Click Here to read the text of H.R. 2159

Click Here to read the DHS List of "Terrorists"

Click Here to Read the DHS Booklet declaring Veterans a Domestic Threat

Click Here to read about the FBI classifying Military vets as potential terrorists

Many more where these came from...............






[edit on 5/9/2009 by Champagne]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Champagne
 


Nope sorry not cutting it there Champagne.

I've read every single one of your links, and the only mention of "right-wing" to anything at ALL, is the fact (from the Turner Network Radio Show) that returning vets because of economic climate conditions among some other attributes may be ripe for recruitment by right-wing extremist groups. This is conjecture for anyone at all saying this.

But I asked for a point of reference in the Bill itself where "right-wing" is referenced, it is nowhere in that Bill. This is what I asked for, but as of yet have not seen it posted from anyone.



AB1



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
So obviously, the question is.. How do we oppose this bill? Wait until it gets to congress then spam our representitives to vote no?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Short of masses of pitchfork wielding citizens storming the capital building and hanging these traitors by the short hairs, Yes, that's all that can be done until 2010. Sad state of affairs when so many that where fooled by the speeches now coming to their senses and saying to themselves " What in Hell was I thinking"!!


Zindo



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

I've asked the question 3 times or more, and still no response, where is there ANY mention other than dangerous terrorists not being able to get transfers of firearms that would suggest this is a partisan issue?


I posted this based upon the governments own definition of TERRORIST!! There are many threads to support the recent link of items concerning the way the government is defining the term. DHS recently published a nine-page assessment on "Rightwing Extremism" that appears to lump many traditional conservatives in the ranks of potential terrorist....

The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"

Please answer "yes" or "no" to the following questions:

-- Do you oppose abortion?

-- Are you against illegal immigration?

-- Did you vote for Ron Paul last year?

-- Do you believe in conspiracy theories?

-- Are you a veteran of the armed forces?

-- Were you upset by Barack Obama's election to the presidency?







posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Champagne
 


That document is speculative about the "what ifs". Nor is the Government's definition of terrorist solely right-wing extremists, but ANY VIOLENT AND RADICAL extremist.

So, let me get this straight.....

You agree that it's a GREAT IDEA for violent extreme ANYONE to have equal access to Explosives and Firearms?

Furthermore you feel that by denying it, it erodes our society, and is something we should fight against??


If so, I'm sorry I'm taking the next boat, and you can sail alone on that one.




AB1



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


No, that's NOT what he means. It's the idea of who is making the determination of who is and who isn't on the list. Its subjective and partisan in that most on the list feel our country needs to go a different direction than what is being done by the present administration. They are making the rules and making the lists and even though they made a cursory list of animal rights advocates and a few loudmouthed Liberal Democrats on the list, Its essentially a list of Democratic foes.

Zindo



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I'm serious about this, I've never been more serious about this, we need to write our congressmen and women NOW. This is one of Rham Emmanuel's plans to ban guns.



This cannot be allowed to happen.


[edit on 9-5-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Don't know if this has been brought up, but they could be trying what the same thing they did when they outlawed marijuana. They couldn't actually outlaw it so they decided to require a tax stamp. You had to have a sample of marijuana to get the tax stamp. Here's the catch 22: if you had the marijuana without the tax stamp, you were in violation of the law.

They could be attempting to label anyone who tries to purchase a gun as a radical gun-rights advocate, thereby making it illegal for anyone to purchase a firearm.

Wouldn't put it past them...


TA



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Well,

With all due respect, it doesn't matter who's making up the list, so long as the list remains what it is supposed to be targeting. That being (again I point out) VIOLENT Extremists, no matter what flavor they are, right, left, islamic, jew, christian.....let the list go on where appropriate.

THAT is what's in that Bill...and all other documentation that's supporting the claim here, is all about the VIOLENT group of extremists.

While the Bill makes no mention whatsoever about right-wing anything at all (which WAS my original contention and thus far correct) who in their right mind could be opposed to a Bill that restricts access to VIOLENT groups from obtaining transfer sales of explosives and firearms to such people??

This is not any type of erosion to the ability for LAW ABIDING citizens to keep and bear arms, simply the violent ones.



AB1



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Since when does the glorified secretary to the president have the power to propose, or in any way create policy? Since when does the United States have a prime minister? Who is really running the country?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by Champagne
 


Nope sorry not cutting it there Champagne.

I've read every single one of your links, and the only mention of "right-wing" to anything at ALL, is the fact (from the Turner Network Radio Show) that returning vets because of economic climate conditions among some other attributes may be ripe for recruitment by right-wing extremist groups. This is conjecture for anyone at all saying this.

But I asked for a point of reference in the Bill itself where "right-wing" is referenced, it is nowhere in that Bill. This is what I asked for, but as of yet have not seen it posted from anyone.



AB1


With all due respect..............you yourself said it was a broad scope bill. I am just quoting the article here & I do believe the term POTENTIAL TERRORISTS leaves a hell of alot open to what could possibly happen with this bill. My God, man, they are calling people, such as many on this site, possible domestic terrorists simply for our beliefs and voicing them.

So, if the gov is labeling right-wing extremists as domestic terrorists and their own difination of this reflects my concerns. I can understand them not using the exact term RIGHT WING EXTREMIST however, is not the bill vague enough to let them interprete it as they see fit?

Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says "rightwing extremism" may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments.

Sorry if you do noit like WND..............




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Well,

With all due respect, it doesn't matter who's making up the list, so long as the list remains what it is supposed to be targeting. That being (again I point out) VIOLENT Extremists, no matter what flavor they are, right, left, islamic, jew, christian.....let the list go on where appropriate.

THAT is what's in that Bill...and all other documentation that's supporting the claim here, is all about the VIOLENT group of extremists.

While the Bill makes no mention whatsoever about right-wing anything at all (which WAS my original contention and thus far correct) who in their right mind could be opposed to a Bill that restricts access to VIOLENT groups from obtaining transfer sales of explosives and firearms to such people??

This is not any type of erosion to the ability for LAW ABIDING citizens to keep and bear arms, simply the violent ones.



AB1


I totally understand what you are saying, AB1. What I am thinking about is - when the PTB come for our weapons and we take a stand to defend our right to bear them will we not then be preceived as being violent??

I do not trust the government & they will make true patriots seem like violent offenders in MSM to the masses. That is all I am saying. Just seems like this is a good example of a bill that could come into play if the People ever do take a revolutionary stand.........

We've already been labelled EXTREMISTS. Once we pick up our weapons to defend ourselves against the government taking more of our Constitutional rights - we will be labelled as VIOLENT!!




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Champagne
 


Yes! absolutely, it COULD be vague enough to allow for a possible intrusions of our rights.

I will agree with you 100% there!!


However, in the same breath, I want to say this much, I firmly believe that nooooo one, even if it DID slip through the cracks, noooo one would allow it to last long enough for it to be a major issue. But, then again I find that to be true for almost ALL current laws, or Bills about to be signed into law.

We all know politicans are ALWAYS looking out for their own best interests before ours. If that weren't the case, the media wouldn't focus so much on their private lives as they do.

Plain and simple, even our mighty Government KNOWS they simply don't have the resources or the wearwithal or the personnel nor the fortitude to disarm American citizens. It's just not possible, and the citizenry at large would never allow it.



AB1

[edit on 9-5-2009 by alphabetaone]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


With all due respect..are you out of your mind? Of course it makes a difference who's making the determination of who's on a unwanted or needed list of possible nere-do-wells! The political impact of the list and the types of citizens that are liable to be on it is most definitely politically motivated! Anyone who might possibly be against the wishes of this Administration or the denuding of our constitution are on that list! if you can't understand the implications, then you might want to think about you being on the other side in 4 years with your name on the list!

Zindo
edit to say, just look at the idiocy of the names on the no-fly lists!!

[edit on 5/9/2009 by ZindoDoone]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
how to tell if you are a right-wing terrorist:

1. you wish to own a gun

if you chose #1, then you are a right wing terrorist and are not permitted to own a gun.

that was easy, wasnt it?




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join