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.

 

H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileslloyd
They want to take your guns away? So what? The less guns there are in a country, the less gun crime there is. The less gun crime there is, the less your police will need to use their arms.

Why are Americans so protective over their right to own guns? I don't know anyone with a gun. I also don't know anyone who has been shot or anyone who has been in a situation where their life depended on owning a gun.


Because, if a nation has no arms, they have no means of protecting their rights from those who would usurp them as they have been successfully doing due, in large part, to the populace's apathetic clinging to the status quo.

WE THE PEOPLE, are granted unalienable rights to protect ourselves, our families, and our PROPERTY from those we have chosen to run our government.

Those inaleinable rights include the right to self preservation. Police are not there to protect us. That is OUR responsibility. Police are there to enforce the corporate law of the government and nothing else.

Jaden




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


You know that declaring war against the United States Government is in fact illegal right?


Do you know why they were arrested? If you look up the actual papers, you will find that that grounds for arrest was Armed criminal action. They were conspiring to challenge the govt. BUT they did so while having a gun on them. Because they talked about challenging the govt while having a gun on them they were not only arrested, but they are now no longer allowed to legaly own, posses, or buy a gun ever.



Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Article III Section 3

So, according to your account, they should have been tried for Treason. But fortunately for them, they weren't.

As far as Militias are concerned, There are two places in the constitution where it mentions militias...

One that everyone is familiar with is the 2nd Amendment, the other one is in fact Article 2 Section 8:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Same source

So, in fact you could consider the arrest of the Militia members disciplining this particular Militia.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by whatukno]


Wrong, it is not treasonous to defend the constitution against domestic enemies that ignore it.

It is the only intention of the second amendment to defend against such an occurence.

Jaden



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
You do all amke a pretty resonable argument, but think about all the countries in the world where firearms are illegal like the U.K. We never need to use guns to defend ourself/families/property because no-one is coming after us with guns. This is all I'm trying to say. Gun crime is so high in America because people are allowed guns. You can give someone perfectly sane a firearm but who's to say the might not lose their minds at some point and get trigger happy? Sure, that has happened to the English twice this year, but how many times has it happened in the states this year?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


If in fact the militias were not ordered to do so by the constitutionally elected congress, then it is treason.

That's the part of Article I Section 8 that militias willfully ignore.

I put it in my post and you copied it, obviously you read it. The people in Congress that we elected are the rightful people to arm, order and discipline the militias. Any militia that ignores that part is nothing more than a street gang.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mileslloyd
 


I understand your reasoning, however, it is one of the great strengths of the United States to have such an armed population. A direct invasion of this country could never occur because of that fact.

You use England as an example, so I will too.

William Wallace,

The Vikings,

The Romans,

All foreign invaders that because of an unarmed populace were able to invade.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
All I have to say about the subject is:

WHY are you still ASKING permission from the government to do something that is your natural right?

You can defend yourself by all means necessary, the government is YOUR servant - not the other way around AND, do you guys think that criminals would give up their guns if the gov asked for them?

Then why would you???



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


You must have far more faith in the average cop and soldier than I do. Right now, our "average" police force is tasering and beating on U.S. citizens daily.

Right now, the police force are employing more and more soldiers that are discharged than ever before. And, many of these soldiers turned police officers are the very one's tasering and beating U.S. citizens because of instabilities in their own lives due to Post Traumatic Stress disorder, and the violence that they are used to inflicting during times of war.

Trust me, the very people that you think will protect us, are the very people who have already turned on us.

Go to this page, and then click on the link that says: PDF Employing Returning Combat Veterans as Law Enforcement Officers. It is the 4th link down.
www.google.com...:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a

So, I'm not for sure where you are getting your idea that this would never happen when its currently happening right in front of your eyes.

Namaste and Love


[edit on 30-7-2010 by PsychoX42]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by philosearcher
 


Nah. Americans are too apathetic and lazy to defend their rights. That's been proven over and over, otherwise, the Patriot Act would have never been passed and then reinstated with new rules and provisions.

I remember seeing that huge statement that the Arizona militias made two weeks ago about "Exterminating the Zetas over the border." 2 days later, the Zetas took 2 ranches without a fire shot whatsoever. Yeah, those militia guys were really big and tough.

Americans are all talk. They've seen too many movies about being tough guys, but, they never follow through with anything.

The closest that we have seen as far as Americans fighting back were at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and they made those people seem like extremists.

Americans don't have much will at all. They watch too much television and eat too much McDonald's to ever do anything worthy of taking back their freedoms.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


I'm in the Eastern Sector of Texas as well. I agree completely with what you posted. They can "Pass" what they want to but it simply is NOT "Actionable".
I believe the FREE State of Arizona is where it will start and "The Globalist's" want an internal war within this nation. Europe has proclaimed many times since WWII that the next World War will NOT be fought on their continent, that it would be fought on the soil of North America.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoX42
 


You really need to get your facts in order, the Zetas took NO ranches in Texas and ACM IS and HAS been hunting Zetas as well as other Cartel gangs. I might add the Hunt has only begun. You must be in another #ry, Psycho........



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Do you really think Americans will do anything?

I live in Indiana where guns are everywhere. And still, most people roll over for the police and federal government out of fear of recourse.

I don't think that Americans have the cojones to do anything other than complain and take what they're dished out.

If there was a time to act in this country, it was when Bush legalized torture right in front of our eyes. If there was a time to act, it was when the Patriot Act was passed without a hiccup. If there was a time to act, it was when it took the federal government 5 days to help the people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina while the police kept people from leaving that parish at gunpoint. But, as it were...nothing happened.

Yep, right here in the good ole' USA, apathetic Americans allowed the police force to contain those poor people who were dying, starving, and withering away into nothing. They were literally not able to pass from one city to the other, and you think that the citizens will actually fight back? Bollocks.

This is not an insult to you Boondock. This is an insult to the apathy of the American public. There will be no fighting the government. Our citizens will roll over like they always have.

Namaste and Love



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSROT
 


Whatever you say. The article says different though.

Until I see something that says otherwise, I think I'll stick with my statement.

And, there is no try...there is only do. And so far, Americans have done nothing. If you can show me proof otherwise, then I will retract my statement.

Namaste and Love



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
The clear intent of this bill is to give the AG the power to unilaterally remove someone's right to buy a gun without a trial.

That's it.

The logic of this bill is so retarded that a two year old can see this is nothing more than a gun grab.

If a person is plotting to engage in "terrorism" or is aiding and abetting a "terrorist," they are already committing a crime.

Therefore if the government actually had any evidence of this, they would arrest the person and bring them to trial where they would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is actually the case.

Hence, if the government bans a person from buying a gun because they are a terrorist, but an arrest warrant is not issued for that persons arrest at the same time, we can assume THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO ACTUALLY CONVICT THE PERSON.

Thus this law is aimed ONLY AT PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEARLY NOT GUILTY OF TERRORISM.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Just a short point of fact I wanted to put here.

Not attributing ANYTHING regarding Gun Control in the US to these numbers but make of them what you will.

Number of Deaths attributed to Firearms in the USA in 2009 = 29,569.

Number of Deaths attributed to Firearms in the UK in 2009 = 29.

Enough said I think.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by astrogolf
 


READ THE LINK I PROVIDED!

It's a dead bill!

It's going nowhere!

No one is after your guns!


I'm surprised you would actually call this bill dead. In reality it's not dead until the Obama administration is out of office and until that happens it is all too alive even if it was drafted a year ago. Owning guns or anyother sort of weapon is part of a human's natural rights that are all too often trampled on by the various governments of the world. For the people who say that guns cause an increas in crime I ask them to tell me what would stop those criminals from aquiring guns illegally or using other forms of weapons. It will be the law abiding citizens without a form of protection and the criminals with the guns.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by vor78
 


THANK YOU!


Jun 12, 2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.


www.govtrack.us...

But they uttered the magic words, "gun control". Which means every gun nut and freak is going to come in here bleating "They can take my gun out of my cold dead hand!"

It's sad, but you get to see who the truly dumb are.


Most bills begin by being considered by one or several congressional committees

which may "report" the bill favorably or unfavorably to the Senate or House as a whole allowing it to receive consideration by the full body and move forward, or may fail to consider a bill at all preventing the bill from moving forward. Most bills never receive any committee consideration and are never reported out. House bills start in House committees and enter Senate committees only after being passed by the House and received by the Senate, and similarly for Senate bills.

Information on committee proceedings is notoriously opaque: committees vary in what information they make public and often do not provide basic public information such as the results of votes electronically or in an understandable format. Furthermore, if your Member of Congress does not sit on any committee relevant to this bill, you generally have no opportunity to voice your opinion on the bill while the bill is receiving its most important consideration.

The bill has been referred to the following committees:

House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

As you can see, the bill is still active and is under consideration by Homeland Security - the 'domestic terrorist' specialists... The email was relevant, this OP is relevant, so therefore: Republic - 1, Communism - 0

Sorry Groucho.... better try next time

COSPONSORS(37):
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 11/19/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 6/4/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 4/29/2009
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] - 6/30/2010
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 11/19/2009
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 12/10/2009
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19] - 5/26/2010
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 12/3/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 5/26/2010
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] - 6/30/2010
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 12/1/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 5/12/2010
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 5/26/2010
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 6/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 1/12/2010
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 4/29/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 6/26/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 6/22/2010
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 11/19/2009
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 6/22/2010
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 4/29/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 7/15/2010
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/29/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 7/13/2010
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 12/16/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 1/12/2010
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] - 3/2/2010
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 4/29/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 5/26/2010
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 11/16/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 3/11/2010
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 5/12/2010
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 4/29/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 5/21/2009
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 7/21/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/20/2010
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 12/3/2009

Similar Bills S.1317

NOTE: Anyone notice that representatives can still throw in thier support of this bill?

Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 6/22/2010
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] - 6/30/2010
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] - 6/30/2010
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 7/13/2010
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 7/15/2010

How can a bill continue to gain "Co Sponsors" if it were dead, huh Marxist?
Republic -2, Communism - 0

I hereby proclaim whatukno the Marxist a disiformation agent. the proof is in the post.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by Megiddodiddo]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by crichton13
 


So you're saying that you want America to become like the UK? Personally I'd like to keep my freedom and owning guns is part of that. Without guns America never would have been able to come out from under Great Britain in the Revolutionary War and become the great nation we are today.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I believe that the Clinton Administration put up a healthcare bill once upon a time, and it died.

I believe that many people considered that the Obama healthcare 'reform' had NO CHANCE of passing up until a few days before it PASSED!



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by astrogolf
 

Interesting vid. I hope others see it. But, I suggest that you start your own thread with it because your post will get lost in a sea of other posts if you don't.

Namaste and Love



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by crichton13
Just a short point of fact I wanted to put here.

Not attributing ANYTHING regarding Gun Control in the US to these numbers but make of them what you will.

Number of Deaths attributed to Firearms in the USA in 2009 = 29,569.

Number of Deaths attributed to Firearms in the UK in 2009 = 29.

Enough said I think.


not really, considering the US has far more people.

since people tend to use knives where guns are unavailable, the only way to compare is by measuring homicide rates.

The homicide rate for Europe 2009 5.4 per 100,000
The homicide rate for the US 2009 5.4 per 100,000

The UK's homicide rate was 1.49, but this doesn't say much considering the Swiss have a homicide rate of 1.01 but half the households have fully automatic assault rifles in them.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join