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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DohBama
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?


You forgot to add. If you choose #1 you are clearly a sick minded individual that wants to shoot up high schools. At least that's the european perspective.




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
This is from Eddie Murphy's "Delirious" making a joke about why any white would vote for a black president (in his skit, it was Jesse Jackson) I think he pretty much sums it up nicely at least in terms of anybody voting for Jesse or Obama, you literally would have had to be stoned or drunk to think it was a good idea, then end up regretting it the next morning (again, in terms of voting for Jesse or Obama)




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
If this is true then the best thing to do is just disregard this law and get a gun anyway. Get one from a crack dealer if you have to. This bill is unconstitutional and whoever is trying to pass it is very unpatriotic and un-American.

They are a traitor as anyone that votes for it is a traitor as is anyone that tries to take your guns away under this law. They are trying to circumvent the Constitution in such a way as to be treasonous. The sentence for anyone who votes for this should be death and anyone authority that tries to put you in jail for having a gun against this law should at the very least be sentenced to life in prison for committing treasonous acts against the document known as the Constitution which our authority figures have sworn to protect. Anyone in support of this bill is completely un American in my opinion in every sense of the term.

You can't just put up a list of people and say these people can't have guns. We're innocent until proven guilty and an accusation alone is not enough to deny someone their rights. The proper method to disarm the people is to modify the Constitution as it supersedes any law of the land. As long as that document grants the people their right to bear arms then that is the way it is.

The people simply need to stick together here and I mean really really stick together and send these people a message that they will simply not obey this law and if they want to put us all in prison for it then so be it. We will choose to be persecuted first before giving up our rights.

Don't know if it's true or not, but if they think they'll just gonna write a list of people that can't have guns because they say so they're not going to do it without a fight. I will not stand for this. I will not let it stand. You'll have to put me six feet under first and then you'd better still not turn your back to me!



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
We need to investigate this congressman seriously. Any connections he has. This is the most rediculous bill ever. Might as well pass a law stating that No Terrorist organizations are allowed to enter this country. Who the hell is he kidding? He is obviously targeting Americans with this bill.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
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.


WHY do I have 50 guns? Because there are VARIANTS of guns and designs....and I collect. WHAT difference does this make? WHY do I need anyone's permission to be a collecting fool?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Champagne
 


This is really FUNNY.
Let me explain why- Peter King spent the better part of his adult life supporting the IRA, and helped to smuggle GUNS to the IRA!

source:en.wikipedia.org...



Peter King first ran for public office in 1977, when he ran for Hempstead Town Council in Hempstead, New York
....
In the 1980s he frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members.[3] In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York he said that “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.” [4] [5] He was branded by a judge in a Northern Ireland court “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”.[6] He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of both financing the IRA and providing them with weapons,


Does anyone else see the irony in this?

BTW, there are literally thousands of articles concerning Peter King and his support of the IRA on the net. King is one of the biggest phonies in Congress.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by ProfEmeritus]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I assume you missed the part where the sponsor of this bill is a Republican.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I have to agree with tinfoil man:
"The proper method to disarm the people is to modify the Constitution as it supersedes any law of the land. As long as that document grants the people their right to bear arms then that is the way it is."
The last amendment #27 was proposed in 1789 and not ratified until 1992 and states:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
So changing the constitiution in not unheard of. If the members of congress feel xo strong about gun ownership and who or who should not be allowed to have a firearm that they would make up some kind of a nazi type list, then they should respect the American people enough to just come right out and vote on amending the 2nd amendment or repeal it alltogether. Since when did we become such a chicken s#!$ country where we have secret list with our personal and political information on it. This is a kind of divide and conquer tatctic of the most cowardly fashion.
I for one say vote on it. And if it passes legally then I'm all for it.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kenton1234
 


It would also have to be ratified by the States. But that would never happen and these treasonous traitors know it.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kenton1234
 


They already made up that 'Nazi' type list and law. Its called GCA-68! Senator Dodds father who was in possession of the actual law Hitler and his mob used to disarm the German public was used as the basis for GCA-68. It was the first law that allowed the government to keep track of all sales of firearms and how dealers had to jump through foolish and unneeded hoops to do business with law abiding citizens!

Zindo



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
If anyone is surprised by the responses to this thread, just remember:

ATS is the place where rapists should have the freedom to carry around date rape drugs, speeding is okay, and child molesters are just A-OKAY with collections of child porn.

These same people thing giving up your freedom to wear black socks on Tuesday equates to giving up ALL OF YOUR FREEDOM. Likewise, giving up a criminals freedom of anonymity equates to everyone being a suspect of the state.

Remember kids: Dangerous terrorists deserve to own weapons and explosives too!

(If they don't, ATS will find a way to skew definitions so that EVERYBODY is a dangerous terrorist in some pathetic attempt to make a bill/law/regulation look like a vast invasion of privacy and constitutional freedom.)

After all, there is a reason why the majority of people think conspiracy kooks are crazy.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Relax. Nothing to worry about - unless you plan on just handing your guns over without a fight. In that case, you ought to be plenty worried.

All those folks who say this isn't an attempt to abrogate your rights fail to realize how the pendulum swings. Under Bush, it was their side under the gun, now, under Obama, it's yours. The pendulum will swing the other way again. Just collect everything they say to you, store it, and next time, when they are the ones screaming bloody murder that OMG their rights are being trampled! just feed 'em back their own words. After a couple of cycles of that, folks will begin to realize that we're ALL under the gun.

It's not a right-wing left-wing sort of paradigm. That's just what the flunkies in DC try to sell you, and it amazes me how many buy it. It's just the flavor of the day, that's all.

Back when I was a kid, I grew up in America. Back then, they had this pesky little concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'. They seem to have gotten over that notion, according to the way this legislation is worded, "... or suspected terrorists". It's not the first time, and won't be the last. Already, you can be 'suspected' of harboring thoughts of domestic violence - no proof, no action,not even any words, just a 'feeling' sworn to by a vindictive ex,even falsely, and for 'suspicion' of that misdemeanor, your rights to be armed with firearms are voided. No trial, just voided. It's already here, they're just broadening the description, and consolidating the power. Oh, if you're a cop, and they might need you to stand between them and a pissed off citizenry, you can get an exemption. You are declared above the law. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I'm tired of fighting this fight, which is of course what they want. Or so they think. No matter how many times I've raised my voice to DC, in company of others, they still keep up the assault. I'm tired of raising my voice to people who ignore it. Since they can't understand plain english, there must be some other coin of the realm they'll deal in. Regarding Rahm Emmanuel, and anybody like him, if they truly had the courage of their convictions, they'd already be at your door, leading the charge to take your guns. Rahm Emmanuel, and everyone like him, is a joke. They can yak all day long, but when the rubber meets the road, they're cowering behind their desks. Not an ounce of man in 'em. He should prove me wrong, and come to get 'em, in person.

So go ahead and scream at DC. Next week, they'll have another bit of illegal legislation for you to rail about. I'm tired of screaming. I'm just gonna sit here, cleaning my 'assault weapon', and wait.

nenothtu out



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
This thing has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.

Which I am grateful for, because I think it's stupid, then again there are a lot of morons on ATS and out in the wild that shouldn't be allowed to operate a tricycle, let alone a firearm.

Dont get me wrong, I am strongly in favor of the right to bear arms, unfortunately you're always going to get your fair share of demented worthless swine like this, who think they're legally entitled by the "castle doctrine" to shoot seven year olds for "trespassing"


Listen all you rightwing idiots out there, you may want to shoot your neighbors because they voted for the wrong guy, but some of us will be perfectly happy to shoot back


[edit on 5/9/09 by xmotex]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Champagne
 


You really have to stop believing the fiction that passes for news on World Net Daily. They actually make FOX News look fair and balanced by comparison. Go read a real newspaper.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I keep saying it and saying it - STOCK UP ON GUNS & AMMO NOW! Yes, right now. Ammo is getting harder to buy, now the stripping away of the constitution at a snails pace that no one will notice. Get a gun today while you still can - hell, get 2!! Tick tock tick tock tick tock...time is running out



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
o.k. i'm trying to fit this logic together.

They say, if you outloaw guns, only the outlaws will have the guns.

So, if you ban right wing extremists from owning guns, does that mean,
only right wing extremists will own guns?
or
only left wing extremists will own guns?

Please help me understand, i'm a bit confused about this.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Everyone just needs to support their States. Many states are enacting legislation to remove federal authority over firearms within their borders. Even if this law passes, it won't be law in Montana or any others that follow suit.

The fed has no right to enact this law or any other laws concerning gun rights. If you think I'm wrong please point out the section of the Constitution that grants gun control laws to the Fed. You won't find it which means it falls on the states.

Support your State Initiatives.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Champagne
 


Kudos to Obama, Pelosi and Reid for causing an absolute stampede to the gunstores of America! Never before in my rather long memory has anything like this happened.

Go to any gun store and try to buy a popular handgun. Out of stock, not available. Ammunition, even 22s sold out. No ammunition on the shelves, all bought up the day it arrives. Reloading supplies, completely unavailable, sold out the day it arrives no matter how much comes in! Some buyers are buying unimaginably large supplies of ammo IF they can get it.

If a supplier COULD supply large quantities of popular shooting supplies they could charge whatever they want.

Don't know what the paranoid liberal reaction to this current American phenomenon is but I can imagine they are out there proposing and writing gun and ammunition laws for every imaginable contingency! They will have them written up, ready to file the minute some crazy commits a gun crime! LOL



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I think a states-rights approach is probably a good strategy against more stringent federal gun control laws.

As skeptical as I might be of this particular story (how exactly does one determine who is a "right wing extremist" anyway?) I think gun control is a failed approach to adressing gun crime in this country as gun crime appears to be in no other sense different from other violent crimes.

Gun control is a failed approach to violent crime, and one that mainly serves to annoy and obstruct perfectly law-abiding hobbyists.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
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]


The government can label ANYONE a terrorist. So long as they keep telling the public so and so is a terrorist, most people will end up agreeing with the government and going after average citizen because he happens to be pro-constitutional rights, or whatever our attorney general comes out with next.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join