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.

 

The Democratic Controlled Congress/Whitehouse just PROTECTED Your Second Amendment Rights!

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Today I was researching concealed carry laws, and of course I get the wikipedia link, close to the top of the search results,
wiki link

so I shrug and click it anyway, and start reading, and I'm surprised to learn about H.R. 627, which

will prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from enacting or enforcing any regulations that restrict possession of firearms in National Parks or Wildlife Refuges, as long as the person complies with laws of the state in which the unit is found.

sounds interesting, right?

I look that up and it's the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009".
H.R. 627 Link

Say what? What's THAT got to do with the 2nd amendment?

I dig into the full text,
Full Text Link , and much to my surprise, there it is in Section 512:

(7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed. (b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System- The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if-- (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

Signed into law on May 22, 2009 by Barack Obama.

Pretty cool, I wonder who snuck that in!

Kinda goes against the whole "they're coming for my guns" rhetoric we hear so often. MUST be a conspiracy here somewhere!




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
yes, but for how long



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


There is ONE simple explanation for this..... THEY DON"T READ THE BILLS.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Should have slipped a few more into the "stimulus bill"

These arrogant sons of witches dare to bring a speedreader when they are requested to actually read a bill before they sign it.

Arrogance can cost ya.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

They could have put an end to income taxes with a set date and nobody would have known it was there until long after it was signed.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Maybe I am reading it wrong. It doesn't seem to be a law.

It merely suggests that Congress needs to weigh in and what kind of parameters the law should clarified.

Notice the world needs and should,

Anybody else reading it like this.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tjack

Kinda goes against the whole "they're coming for my guns" rhetoric we hear so often.


I wish it did, but alas, even the Democrats have to pick their battles.

Another thing you might consider is that the NRA lobbied heavily for this provision and mounted a staggering grassroots effort in support of it.

Guess what happens when the Congress starts pushing bills through so fast that the Congress doesn't don't have the time to read them, much less the people?

Print. Vote. Sign.

Grassroots?

Yeah, right.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I thought that for a minute too, but if you look at the entire section 512, it has 2 parts, A and B. It didn't format nicely in the external source box, the link is a much friendlier read.

Part A, is like a list of what Congress has determined and decided to do regarding a particular matter, in this case, guns and traps on Fed. land.


Part B is pretty clear, and doesn't have that type of verbage that part A has, and it states: (b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System- The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

Sounds cut and dried, but I'm no expert, just getting this in here, so the folks who know can help explain it to the rest of us.


[edit on 22-7-2009 by tjack]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Democrats aren't in favor of banning guns. That is a myth.

They are in favor of controlling guns, which is generally a good thing, although it can be a very bad thing.

Some guns simply aren't needed by citizens. Explosives, incendiary devices, rapid-fire automatics.. these are things that no rational person would ever need, for home defense or otherwise. Even in a situation where you want to overthrow an oppressive regime, semi-auto is always preferable to full-auto (for the accuracy).

However, when they start passing "assault weapons bans" which broadly cover many different types of weapons, the actual infringement on our rights begins. Sadly, this bill will do nothing to stop those sorts of bans.

In any event, I am glad to see this, as it is a reaffirmation that at least those in power still respect the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. In all honesty, I wasn't expecting that from this administration.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


You are under assumption that they actually read that part of the bill before they signed it.... see above.

IF Ron Paul thought about it, he could add a line to every bill that the "bill cannot take effect until the US budget is balanced" on every bill and they wouldn't catch half of them.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Democrats aren't in favor of banning guns. That is a myth.


Dr. Wizard

Not all Democrats are in favor of banning guns.

Some actually support the Second Amendment.

You are however obfuscating the facts.

The Left wants to ban all guns.

The Left is heavily represented in the Democrat party.

The Left will stop at nothing to achieve their agenda and have been working at this for no less than a century.

They have even gone so far as to pervert the meaning of the Second Amendment, claiming that it is vaguely written and doesn't apply to individuals as do all the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Please feel free to rationalize to your heart's content, but don't try to fool the rest of us.

Some of us have been in this battle for too long and have heard all the lies and rhetorical tactics.

If it were not for the NRA and other Second Amendment groups, there would be far more laws infringing on the right to keep and bear arms than there are now.

Some of us weren't born yesterday.

[edit on 2009/7/22 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Tom Coburn...A republican from my Great State of Oklahoma snuck this in. Still is kinda lip service though. It says an unelected official like the Secretary of the Interior can't take it away...has no provisions for ELECTED folk like the POTUS or Congress.

Helps, but doesn't end the problem.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
many retirees carry guns in there motor homes as they travel around the country.

with the restrictive laws in the national parks systems many ether hide there guns in there motor homes or bypass the national parks all together.

there is little danger from armed retirees and they do to there travels need firearms when traveling the back-roads and some areas. plus there are few places for them to store there weapons when they travel into a national park.

i know i have traveled through many national parks with weapons hidden in my motor-home and have took the risk.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by ANNED]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


You are however obfuscating the facts.

The Left wants to ban all guns.



Wow, and I'm the one obfuscating the facts?

You're making sweeping generalizations about the "left", when you appear to not even know what it means.

The left vs. right paradigm deals exclusively with economic issues. The "left" has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

Political Compass

It is the "top", aka the Authoritarians, who want to get rid of guns. It is a method of controlling the populace, and it is not limited to people on the left or the right.

Economically, I am a leftist. Yet I am firmly in support of the second amendment, as well as all of the other amendments. That is because I am a libertarian leftist.

Please, if you want to come off as thoughtful, and accuse others of 'obfuscating facts', then try to refrain from making such generalizations. They do not aid you in the long run.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
This Bill was actually big news back in June. As for today, they just shot down ones ability to legally carry a permitted concealed firearm between Non-reciprocal states. I will say this however, even Harry Reid voted Yay on today's Amendment, whereas two Republican turncoats were the decisive factor when they voted Nay.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd


Economically, I am a leftist. Yet I am firmly in support of the second amendment, as well as all of the other amendments. That is because I am a libertarian leftist.

Please, if you want to come off as thoughtful, and accuse others of 'obfuscating facts', then try to refrain from making such generalizations. They do not aid you in the long run.


You should heed some caution in how you term yourself a "Leftist" though. Being a "Leftist" denotes EXTREME Liberalism, and not simply Leftward leanings. I might be wrong, but you do not quite sound like the Leftist type.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Dear Dr. Wizard

If you are truly a PhD, then I would expect that you know the value of generalizations.

Of course, there are always individual differences in any population. In fact, in some political populations, there are those who just don't fit.

Remember, I began my last post pointing out the fact that there are those in the Democrat party who are pro-Second Amendment.

Things get even weirder. There are actually fiscally conservative Democrats. There are like 52 of them in the House. They call themselves the "Blue Dog Democrats."

It would be stupid of me to try to convince any informed person that they are representative of Democrats, because everyone knows that generally, Democrats are not fiscally conservative.

Well, anyway. Generalizations are very useful, but then, you knew that.

Try this one on for size. Men are sexually attracted to women.


[edit on 2009/7/22 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


Well, anyway. Generalizations are very useful, but then, you knew that.

Try this one on for size. Men are sexually attracted to women.




Well, I don't have my PhD yet, but that's neither here nor there.

And while I understand what you're saying, I would have to disagree and say that generalizations are never useful, and only serve to weaken our understanding of how individual minds work. For example, while most men are sexually attracted to women, there are a great deal that are sexually attracted to other men. And even further, many are sexually attracted to both sexes. This is the flaw with generalizations, they don't take the whole picture into account.

While there may be many "leftists" who are in favor of abolishing the second amendment, they certainly don't all feel that way, as that really has nothing to do with being a left or right issue. That was my point.

Many people don't use the full political compass when dealing with political issues, and that is understandable. The funny thing about only using half of the scale is, people who consider themselves on the left see the other side as Authoritarian right, and themselves as libertarian left. People on the right see the Authoritarian left, while considering themselves to be the libertarian right.

This is simply because libertarianism is the true essence of being a US citizen, and very few people align themselves as authoritarian. Ironically, most of our politicians are authoritarian, hence the reason they seek positions of power. I think it is important to abandon the left/right mindset when dealing with issues involving personal freedoms (a la the second amendment), and focus on the authoritarian side of politics, which seeks to oppress us as citizens.

While we may disagree on this matter, I just wanted to point out my opinion on generalizations and the (apparent) misconception that the left wants to abolish gun rights, when it is in fact an Authoritarian goal.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 



Your comments are the most assinine I've ever heard in my life. Citizens would be able to overthrow a regime with semi auto rifles and handguns? LMAO!

Not only do the American people have EVERY right and NEED to own incendiary devices, full auto machine guns and whatever else they desire to match the power of our government I'd take it one step further that we should have a few jets, tanks, mortars, rockets, etc. as well with special citizens trained to use them in any event.

What the hell do you think we won the Revolutionary war? It was musket and canon against musket and canon. The "colonials" and revolutionaires of the 21st century wouldn't stand a chance against fighting a tyrannical government i.e. jets, UAVs, 50 cal automatic machine guns. bradleys etc.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

And while I understand what you're saying, I would have to disagree and say that generalizations are never useful, and only serve to weaken our understanding of how individual minds work. For example, while most men are sexually attracted to women, there are a great deal that are sexually attracted to other men. And even further, many are sexually attracted to both sexes. This is the flaw with generalizations, they don't take the whole picture into account.


With all due respect, wizard, you just destroyed your intellectual credibility.

Keep working on that education.

Sooner or later, the light will shine.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


With all due respect, wizard, you just destroyed your intellectual credibility.

Keep working on that education.

Sooner or later, the light will shine.



So you believe all men are sexually attracted to women? I have met several men in my lifetime who would beg to differ.

And you are the one calling into question my intellectual credibility? How quickly we turn to personal attacks when our own arguments fall short, eh?

It's not even worth arguing with someone who is so... troubled. That, and this entire string of posts is off topic. My original point still stands, gun rights are not a matter of left vs. right at all.

To question my intellectual capacity when you yourself make generalizations and then go on to defend them with further generalizations is incredibly foolish. I certainly hope the "light will shine" for you, because what you are speaking about in this thread honestly makes no sense. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality (not the right place to discuss), you can't simply deny that it exists. To do so would be ignorance in its' purest form.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

So you believe all men are sexually attracted to women? I have met several men in my lifetime who would beg to differ.


Dr. Wizard

This is way off topic, so this is the last post I will make about this, but I will simply ask you to find where I said that all men are attracted to women.

You don't have to tell me about it, just find it.

Good day.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join