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.


No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:03 AM

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by ZindoDoone


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.


If you are "violent" you are probably already a felon (if you are any good at it), and felons are already prohibited from owning guns.
The "extremist" bit is just thoughtcrime, and your thoughts are immaterial as long as you can keep it in your pants. So to speak.
Thoughts and ideas and feelings and words are one thing, and actions are another. That seems a more suitable place to draw the line...less equivocal, less inquisitorial, less argumentative, less work for everybody, less like long sessions of alternating self-criticisms with the Peasants' Self-Improvement Study Synod for hours after work every night...

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:23 AM

Originally posted by kenton1234
I have to agree with tinfoil man:

Yeah I mean I guess I should make it known I'm not even really a gun guy. I have none of my own. However, I can't stand people that try to side step the Constitution but wont admit they want to change it.

Politicians do this for one of two reasons. One is because they never had any interest in protecting the Constitution in the first place. Or worse, they intended to destroy it . That's treason. It's not like they accidentally pass unconstitutional laws. They know what they're doing and keep pushing harder when someone tells them to stop. That's an attack against the country. What else could you call it?

The second one, which is more likely, is they just want a quick bump in the polls from the gun control people. However, they don't want to face the political fall out from trying to get the Constitution changed. They know how the people would react to that.

I hate to use bad words, but I'm not using slang here. I'm using the literal definition. This simply makes them a wh**e. The literal definition of a wh**e is someone who compromises their own principals for personal gain. Such as political gain. Ask any politician if they believe in protecting the Constitution and they'll say yes. So, that's what they believe in right?

To try and circumvent it for a quick jump in the polls is the literal definition of compromising their own beliefs for personal gain. Now, if they want to admit they don't support the Constitution that's fine, but as long as they do then what we have is a wh**e. There's no way around it.

So, this is why I'm not for gun control. Who's trying to sell it to me? Well, it's either someone who doesn't like the Constitution or it's a lying wh**e. Which is it? I don't know, but either way I don't trust em. How could anyone?

I mean, I don't wanna call anyone names, but when someone seriously literally meets the literal definition of two of the worst words in the English language - wh**e and traitor, I think they should be called out on that.

If someone is for gun control then they are for changing the 2nd Amendment and they'd better admit it and go about it the proper American way. It's just that simple.

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by jimmyx

Oh boy, here we go with Bill Clinton. Do you forget that Bill Clinton himself has said that he didn't, and doesn't want American citizens owning firearms? He has stated that only the police, and the military should have firearms, so we were right stating, and pointing out what he said...

One of the goals of the Democratic party is gun control, and to ban all citizens from owning firearms. Obama himself was in favour, and signed for the assault weapons ban, and he wants to reinstate this, alongside others.

These gun grabbers have ued tactics such as claiming they are only after some guns, yet everywhere this has been done, ALL guns ahve been banned. The same happened in Britain, and Australia.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Actually what Obama claimed at first was that "he would not go for any gun control", but as he has broken most of his promises, this is another promise he has broken.

The U.S. Second Amendment according to our Bill of Rights states that no arm shall be debared/banned, which means if gun grabbers go after one type of firearms, they will go after others because the Second Amendment doesn't give the right of the government to debar ANY firearm.

If they can get away with banning one, they will continue until ALL are banned. That is their goal, and don't make any excuses about it.

I posted a couple of days ago about another official which Obama put in power which sttes clearly he will seek to have the UN to control all Guns, including in the U.S., and that ALL states must abide by the UN rules.

I just read this bill, and it has many loopholds to allow for almost anyone to be banned from owning firearms.

According to the bill, and if I understood it right, its 3 am here now, the attorney general may deny tthose people being accused of "terrorists" if "it would compromise National Scurity". For all we know the fact that such a person would know why it is denied of him/her to own firearms could be viewed as a "compromise to National Security".

Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit- Section 923(f) of such title is amended--

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security' before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'.

(h) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of such title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `If receipt of a firearms by the person would violate section 922(g)(10), any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'.

If the court asks for proof that such a person is a terrorists, the government can deny this petition if they find a way to claim it is to protect National Security, and in the case that the govenrment has to present proof, they can only use some of the statements, and not all to decide whether or not such a person may be a terrorist.

In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General's determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General's determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General's determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court's own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney Generals determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.'.

Now there is more.

`(8) The Attorney General may deny the issuance of a permit or license to an applicant if the Attorney General determines that the applicant or a responsible person or employee possessor thereof is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.'.

We all have read what the DHS now views as "possible terrorists", so I am certain the OP from WND is right once again.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:51 AM
so in essence,what the government is saying ,is that the government shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
you have to admit,they are the largest group of terroristic,psychologically unbalanced law breakers ever assembled in one place.
the rejection of the second amendment,not to mention numerous other amendments makes them traitors.
they swore to uphold the constitution. not interpert it for us . we already know what it says. it is plain english.
but what they fail to mention is that they cant continue to get away with destroying our country,if they cant take the guns or ammunition.
they're right,terrorists shouldnt have guns,but we as citizens will have a hard time stopping them as long as the traitor/terrorists have open access to them, and want to and are trying to take ours.

could that be a no witness left behind kinda thing?
funny how they turned the whole thing around,and everybody bought it hook,lie and sinker,huh?
we,as a society have done just fine with guns for over 200 years.
as traitorous government grows,along with crime,why should we listen to a government about our right to protect ourselves against them?

i mean, homeland security has put out 2 reports,one about the right wing extremists,the other ,left wingers,stating we are the enemy! normal people,vets,constitutionalists ,people who believe in the fundamentals this country was built on.and used unreasonable profiling for both sides.

if they dont follow our laws,whats the difference between them and an invading army? UNIFORMS?

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Spectre0o0]

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:29 PM
you gotta be kidding me

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:51 PM
You know, I'm not an extremist in any way. I have guns, but I don't intend to ever use them, god willing. I'm a peaceful human being. But I am also an alert, intelligent, and well trained human being which helps me maintain my peace.

Does that mean I'm a terrorist? Should I be on this list because I'm also an advocate for the reform of the Federal Governments' role in our lives? I think I've been a pretty damned loyal American despite my criticisms. I love this country and would never do anything to harm a fellow citizen, with self-defense as the only caveat.

I've refrained from commenting on these threads as of late about the DHS and their draconian tactics. Their "lists" and what not. Because it has turned from anger to distress for me and it has taken me a moment to really digest what is happening. We escaped Cuba for these tactics. Now we're seeing them here. I have no where else to go, and don't want to. Even if I did want to, what place on Earth is like the US? What other country would tolerate my loud mouth ways? What other country would allow me my right to defend myself, my family, and my property in any way I deem fit? If we lose that here ladies and gentlemen, be forewarned, THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE ON EARTH where these values are upheld. Take it from a guy who knows. Please take my words seriously.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by projectvxn]

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 05:22 AM
HA...Silly politicians...I already have my guns...

(this was supposed to be a video of king leonidas telling his spartans that this is where they stand and fight and then the persian guy comes and hes all like "lay down your weapons" and leonidas is all like "come and get them" it was actually a riveting scene...sorry couldnt post the actual video to save my life)
[edit on 11-5-2009 by BingeBob]

[edit on 11-5-2009 by BingeBob]

[edit on 11-5-2009 by BingeBob]

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.

Be surprised. Hes a good man? And a constitutional slob apparently.

There are already laws on the books to take care of extremists that violate the rights of others. But now that definition is expanding into constitutionally protected grounds. Not to mention expanding in blithering stupidity.

When I see a republican at work like this it simply confirms the suspicion that they are all on the same team anyway.

Naturally if a Dem sponsored this thing it would draw to much fire. A republican affirmation has the desired effect of tossing water on 2ndA rights people and getting them off balance becouse oh wow its from a republican.

This guy should be attacked worse than a democrat for this stupidity.

You just cant have segments of society as mentioned in the terrorist list put on the defensive about their rights with expanded definitions of criminal behavior to include those rights. We have people exercising their right to speak and write on an issue now being marked simply for that AND are now going to have other protected rights curtailed before any evidence suggesting the exercise will evolve into criminal behavior.

The government cannot exercise assumption, especially when constitutionally protected rights are being exercised, that criminal behavior is being considered and that definition of criminal based on some ignorant bureaucrats current self invented definition, simply becouse a person belongs to an organization that opposes anything.

Remember that the signers of the Declaration of Independents were on a " hang on sight" list.

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:48 AM

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.

Fair enough but its worse really becouse TERRORIST is an open definition game here. This is crazy! Its like something Hitler would do with his list of groups trying to derail his efforts.

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:36 PM
In addition some of the groups on the list have long been termed as "right wing extremists" thats a fact. Not that I have any love.

In sec. 2331 (5)

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. § 2331. Definitions

Now the above is the official definition but not all groups in the MEMO could remotely resemble this definition. Thats a problem.

Plus some of the wording here could be applied to many groups simply by the lose wording.

Plus the MEMO talks about bumper stickers, symbols and the like for law enforcement to be on the look out for thus suggesting an open ended approach. Like its ok to hassle sort of thing.

Another point of interest in the MEMO is the claim that "white males" disgruntled with everything from the advancement of women over the last 20 year, the large influx of immigrant workers, the result of the Vietnam War, are on edge.....ect...ect.. that set around and watch Rambo and I guess Chuck Norris movies...ect

Leave it to a woman and probably a feminist to dream that up. She refers to unnamed sources of I dont know PHDs from somewhere that claim this is true.

So be on the look out for all white males that are not metro-sexual in appearance, sport nationalistic type bumper stickers like USA Love it or Leave it, complains about having to pay health care while emigrants get it for free, ect.. oh and are very 2nd amendment protective......

Mr Emanuel says they are not part of the "american" family. Hes very metro. Doesn't look like he ever worked a day in his life but hay soft types are men to.

Oh one more thing...

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; ...

Would the large crowds at Tea Parties qualify as influence by intimidation? The right to assemble in large quantities? Protesting POLICY!!!! ?????? Yes now simply challenging Policy can get you in trouble. A clear violation of constitutional rights.

BY THE WAY!!!!! I believe the above section was written in the BUSH patriot act!!!!! (For all republicans out there).

Threats to exercise the 2nd? Preparation if need be, for the exercise can also be construed as a violation here and in other sections. If you were found to have a large amount of ammunition or to many weapons it could qualify certainly for ....
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate...


[edit on 11-5-2009 by Logarock]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:29 AM
Look... I'm one of the FIRST one to say that buying a gun for defense of our home and family is our right. That should remain in tact.

BUT. I'm also one of the first ones to say that buying semi-automatic and weapons that shoot a hundred rounds of ammo is NOT NECESSARY. Not even for hunting, which I DON'T believe is necessary.

I have defended our home with a .45. The intended robbers ran for their lives when they heard me cock that gun, in the dark, where they couldn't see me.

I think automatic and semi-automatic weapons are a huge threat to humanity. And that's all I can really say, except that I grew up on a farm, know how to use a gun and a rifle (we have both) and would like to carry a loaded one in my car... but L.A. won't give me a license to do that. So I abide by the rules of Law.

I know the criminals DON'T do that, but I'm not a criminal, and don't ever want to be considered one.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by CynCritter]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by Walkswithfish

My thoughts exactly. Remember Rahm Emanuel and the whole "if you're on the no fly list, you won't be allowed to own a gun" I think they're finally targetting the innocent people on the outrageous 'no fly list' to take away the 2nd amendment. Lots of constitutionalists, pro-life activists, anti-war activists, etc. Those are the kinds of people being put on the no fly black list.

It just outrages me! I may be on it for my extremely constitutional views, but who knows. I will never fly again as long as stepping into an airport makes me immediately picture 1984.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:55 AM

To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

This shows one thing.

Congress is stupid.
If someone is a known terrorist you want him to try to buy a firearm.
during the back ground check you will know just where he is and can arrest him when he come in to pick up the weapon.

All this law will do is cause the terrorist to find another way to get there firearms then to buy them from a dealer.
Steal them. buy them from a gang member, build there own, or get them from the black market.

As for explosives no terrorist has to get a explosive license as explosive can be made from common chemicals. or stolen.

When i worked last as a blaster it would take 3 months and cost about $4000 for me to renew my explosive license. state and federal.
add $5000 for the cost of a explosive storage magazine that you had to buy and have inspected if you did not have one already.

Any terrorist with a brain could build a nice large bomb from common chemicals for $9000 and save the time and risk of being arrested when he walked into a police department to start the paperwork for the license.

It cost less then $2000 to build the bomb that was used in Oklahoma city.
and it used chemicals that did not need a explosives license to buy.

when i first started as a blaster it took one week and cost $75 to get a explosives license.(1974)

That only means that this law will not do anything to stop terrorist.
it will just stop many innocent people that just have names that get added to the terrorist list.

This will just be another no fly type list and most of the people stopped will be innocent.

The real terrorist will find many ways around the law.

There is no evidence that all the laws that have been put on the books in the last 40 years have stopped any terrorist.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by ANNED]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:07 AM
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. The street will be safer, the police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." That was spoken by Adolf Hitler, on April 15, 1935.

this is the argument used time and again by tyrannical governments. give us more power and we will give you the "change" you have been waiting for....every time a civilized, gun owning, culture has been disarmed in the name of "change and peace" a major genoside has occured.

i want the American people to PEACFULLY rise up against groweing tyrany and take back the constitution that has been incrementily burned in the name of "progress" "change" and "saftey"....i just think its too late. too many people drinking the kool-aid like the fools of stalin soviet russia, nazi germany, and maois communist china....were in trouble folks

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by CynCritter

Have you read nothing here? Just go back down on the farm with your target rifle and shoot your tin cans and leave the dealing with tyrants to the big boys then.

I am looking up on my wall now and can measure the existent of my rights and freedom which I may add required more than cocking my 45 at home. The 2nd amendment does not stop at your property line.

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in