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.

 

NWO: NEW Gun Control Bill

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Democrats : Gun control bill in lieu of Tuscon Arizona shooting.
Carolyn McCarthy Readies Gun Control Bill.

I predicted it as soon as this story broke the other day.

www.politico.com...
Here's the report ^^^^^^^^^^

In addition to the new bill, Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use LANGUAGE OR SYMBOLS that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

Not only will this actively effect "The Right To Bear Arms" it will also effect "Freedom of Speech"
With what sounds like a broad view on this new law awaiting to pass... What will be considered "threatening" or not??

edit on 9-1-2011 by Mastermook because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2011 by Mastermook because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
So, One thing i've been adamant about saying in many of my posts. Instead of getting to the problem of an individual person, They would instead punish society as a whole.
Not much info about the bill that I know of yet, but keeping an eye out for more details.

edit on 9-1-2011 by Mastermook because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Mastermook
 



Well, my initial thought on gun control is - if you need think you guns to fight the Illuminati, they've already won.


And I daresay I agree agree with the initiative to control how political agents "relate to" and "rally" their constituents to their cause.

Using violent symbols and/or imagery is only going to incite that mentality to arms, and mandate even harsher restrictions if cases like the Gifford Shooting were to become commonplace.

Why even allow the possibility?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Mastermook
 



Well, my initial thought on gun control is - if you need think you guns to fight the Illuminati, they've already won.


And I daresay I agree agree with the initiative to control how political agents "relate to" and "rally" their constituents to their cause.

Using violent symbols and/or imagery is only going to incite that mentality to arms, and mandate even harsher restrictions if cases like the Gifford Shooting were to become commonplace.

Why even allow the possibility?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.





So Sara Palin should be held responsible for imagery inciting that mentality to arms against the congressman.
I think her choice of words were unprofessional and irresponsible, she wasn't being too bright at all.
But what are the chances of that happening?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
As if some knee jerk gun control BS wasn't expected after this? Funny how the employees seem to be telling the employers how things are going to operate? It seems they think they are in control and while they have a semblance of control, they really need to STFU and listen to their employers.

If some nutjob with a gun killed my child, I wouldn't want guns banned. I'd want to see if said nutjob was on Prozac or any other SSRI that most nutjobs using guns tend to be on and would seek to have those drugs banned. Ban those drugs before banning the right to an individual to defend themselves!! (Guaranteed it comes out that this prick was on one of the pharma cocktails!)

I own no firearm that has taken human life nor would I prefer that any ever do. I can say that had I or another armed and trained citizen been next to him when he pulled his stunt, the body count would not have been what it was and he would be roasting where he rightfully should be.

I will not be disarmed, regardless of what legaleze comes out of the District of Criminals. I would like to think that calmer and cooler heads will prevail to ascertain the true nature of this tragedy but have realized that this is a knee jerk nation.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Ok, As a 22 year old gun owner and Pennsylvania resident I dont even have an issue with this. First of all it already is illegal to go running around threatening to kill people regardless if they are a government official or not. As for gun laws, I just dont see it happening. Same as when Obama became president gun prices skyrocketed because he was going to ban assualt rifles and of coarse nothing happened. Most gun laws go state by state, and it will most likely stay that way. And this PA rep can do whatever he wants because one it does not involve any gun law and one of our new governors biggest supporter is the NRA. So IMO if you a good little boy or girl (aka dont run around shooting and threatening people with there life) nothing is going to change.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mastermook
 


Well, no matter what 'they' enact, they can't take what you already have.

Just seems like another push to regulate any further actions necessary to acquire firearms.
As if the regulations aren't enough...


Actually, no matter what 'they' do, they can't stop people from acquiring firearms.
Illegal or not.




edit on 9-1-2011 by havok because: edited grammer



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Mastermook
 


I think the majority of us know Ms Palin is in her Ivory Tower and not "conscious" about how her good humor might be misinterpreted by folks further down the ladder who are really struggling to make sense of this insanity out on the American Frontlines.

I'm not saying she's at fault for what happened - as in, she meant any harm by it but it was rather tasteless to begin with - and a nasty slide towards turning the Political stage into a complete farce if allowed to continue throughout other political canidates memebases.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
reply to post by Mastermook
 


I think the majority of us know Ms Palin is in her Ivory Tower and not "conscious" about how her good humor might be misinterpreted by folks further down the ladder who are really struggling to make sense of this insanity out on the American Frontlines.

I'm not saying she's at fault for what happened - as in, she meant any harm by it but it was rather tasteless to begin with - and a nasty slide towards turning the Political stage into a complete farce if allowed to continue throughout other political canidates memebases.



What ludicrous nonsense. I don't like her any more than I like Obama. She runs her mouth like any other talking head. To equate her diarrhea of the mouth to this tragedy is political trolling and as a mod you should know better...or are the rules different for you??



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


It is possible to have an opinion as a moderator - I'm a member first.

Sorry if my wording wasn't to your liking.

Back on topic then - shall we?




*edit to add: I'm also rabidly anti-political.
edit on 1/9/11 by GENERAL EYES because: to clarify



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
What really gets me is that people are killed every day by guns. It is not until someone in the political world is threaten or killed that these issues arise and laws are changed. There are children killed each and every day by gangs, domestic violence etc... But one Govt offical gets hurt, then everyone freaks out.

Please understand that in NO WAY do I CONDONE what happend in AZ. But why are these issues only important now and not 20 yrs ago?
edit on 9-1-2011 by Moose318 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
What a cop-out.

If one really wanted individuals to watch what they say, do they not require consciousness to do so?

Alternatively, do you want mute, abused dogs as the norm?

I propose that an alternative bill be created immediately, which bans outright fluoride supplementation nation-wide as well as the use of the fumigant sulfuryl fluoride, which has been poisoning our food in the the United States Homeland.

To poison just one person is illegal - whether it is intentional or as a side-effect to attempting helping them. A doctor would be charged with malpractice - the time is now to say "No, thank you." to fluoride, and "Hello!" to responsibility for our personal health.

Anything short of banning fluoride, from it's aqueous solution form in tap water to its fumigant form, is by definition approving unequivocally the mass poisoning of men, women, and children.

If deranged, poisoned, city-dwellers are a concern, then what could be more important? I ask you?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Making it even more difficult and expensive for law abiding citizens to own or purchase firearms, isn't stopping the gang bangers, drug dealers, or "terrorists", from obtaining weapons, because they buy them illegally anyway.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Mastermook
 


I wouldn't get overly concerned about it yet. McCarthy introduces a gun ban almost every year. This is par for the course from her and it will very likely go nowhere. In this particular instance, the fact that it reeks of morbid political opportunism certainly won't work in favor of gun banners, either.

I expect the GOP will stand firm on this one. Gun rights are perhaps their strongest domestic issue, and should they cede that to the Democrats, they could easily find themselves in minority party status for a generation. With a solid House majority, plus a few gun rights supporters in the Dem ranks, it seems highly unlikely that a major gun ban could make it through the House of Representatives right now.
edit on 9-1-2011 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GENERAL EYES
 


Another unsubstantiated snipe at Palin.. I wish I had time to count all of them on ATS, over the past 24 hours. I'll admit I haven't read everything that's been written on the topic, but I've yet to see definitive proof this guy was influenced by Palin in any way.

And, absent that evidence, you should refrain from just repeating what you and others want to be true.


edit on 9-1-2011 by WTFover because: added last line



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mastermook
 


Exactly my friend.
That's the entire problem.
They can't control what guns criminals get, so they control the law-abiding citizens.
Almost like they think 'we' contribute to the criminals abilities to get firearms.

So, they regulate who they have control over.

Us.





posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


I don't believe he was influenced by Palin.

I believe he was influenced by a number of things going on out there, and violent imagery and language (you have to admit the media if FULL of such) is everywhere. Some people take this whole mess and get far too focused on it, far too INVOLVED...and some.....some run across an innocuous image meant in a completely innocent context and take it to terrible, bloody ends.

Stress can cause some people to snap if the situational environment is enough to hit their proverbial buttons.
edit on 1/9/11 by GENERAL EYES because: spellin'



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Another Web Bot prediction coming to pass.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I thought murder was already illegal?

So what makes a Congressman or Senator special?

That's the problem.

They think they're so very special and above the world the rest of us live in.

I think many are feeling threatened by the anger they saw from Tea Party folks last summer, and are now seeing what COULD happen if they continue to ignore angry folks.

Fortunately, this was an extremely LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE wingnut who was unhappy with the limited left-leaning of the Congresswoman.

God Almighty, but we'd never hear the end of it had it been a Conservative.

So since this guy was a big fan of Che Guevera, I seriously doubt he ever even read anything by Sarah Palin.

I'd been hearing the extreme left was getting upset - guess I'd heard right.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
reply to post by bozzchem
 


It is possible to have an opinion as a moderator - I'm a member first.

Sorry if my wording wasn't to your liking.

Back on topic then - shall we?




*edit to add: I'm also rabidly anti-political.
edit on 1/9/11 by GENERAL EYES because: to clarify


To say that I'm against you having an opinion for being a mod is rather disingenuous. I fully believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs and should express them as thy see fit. However, your wording was politically motivated which is why I mentioned the T&C so closely guarded and enforced by those appointed with your task. It matters not whether I like your wording, what matters is that your wording adheres to the rules that you enforce.

By all means! Back on topic!!!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join