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.

 

Is the post about getting rid of the second amendment and the constitution a fishing operation?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 



Hollow-point bullets for example. Also known as cop killers, they are illegal for a person to own. Yet, they still exist. But how can this be? They were designated illegal yet they are still circulating. Why? Because the people interested in owning and using these bullets do not care that they are illegal! In fact, the black market for them has instead increased.


Do you know how I know that your post is full of BS? It's this part right here, Hollow point bullet's are 1. Not Illegal, and 2. Aren't Cop Killer bullets.

Cop killer bullets are actually TEFLON coated bullets. Not hollow points. Hollow points are not illegal because they can be stopped by standard kevlar vests.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Lunatic Pandora
 


In fact it does, see, strangely, the NRA was established the same year the KKK was deemed a terrorist organization.

It's not a coincidence. Just look up the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and you will know that the NRA is and always has been a front for the Klu Klux Klan.


Wuk,
you did not just write that, did you?
come on,
come on now,
whats next?
we should be thankful that he was white and not of color?
bad things happen,
the world is far from sterile and pure, but now its a witch hunt to place blame?
how about just placing it right where it lands, on the shooters shoulders.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Reply to post by lpowell0627
 



Hollow-point bullets for example. Also known as cop killers, they are illegal for a person to own. Yet, they still exist. But how can this be? They were designated illegal yet they are still circulating. Why? Because the people interested in owning and using these bullets do not care that they are illegal! In fact, the black market for them has instead increased.


So wrong from all directions.

The alleged "cop-killers" were steel core pistol ammo. For a number of reasons those are not on the market anymore. The next wave of "cop-killers" were teflon coated ammunition. Wild claims abounds about their magic armor piercing powers. None were true. The teflon was to protect bores. Hysteria got the best of stupid people and they earned the "cop-killer" label and were banned for mythical reasons.

Hollow-pointed bullets are not illegal. You can walk into any shop and buy them. Order them from any online store. The hollow-point causes greater expansion and prevents over penetration.

I believe NJ might have some absurd hollow-point law by NJ isnt really part of the US. It's some creepy entity all its own.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


My only question, and maybe I missed it in previous posts is:

you stated and I quote:



the NRA as a front for the KKK.


Do you have any proof that would suggest your claim holds merit?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


He saw a cartoon that told him it was true.

If he'd bother to look up the people involved in the founding of the NRA he'd see that if anything it was a militant anti-klan group. But I cant find a cartoon for him so he wont believe it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Just the year 1871. the same year the KKK was deemed an illegal terrorist organization.

Too much of a coincidence not to be connected.

The KKK is made illegal, and the NRA is born. hmm, for people who believe in conspiracies that one doesn't seem to bother anyone at all?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Well a little research showed that the Act of 1871 was designed to protect the African Americans from any wrong doings involving the KKK.


The act was intended to protect African Americans from violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), a white supremacist group.


Further, :


In March 1871, President ulysses s. grant requested from Congress legislation that would address the problem of KKK violenc


So my question is, if the President and Congress of that time, acknowledged that the KKK was a problem, how does one conclude that it was a front to protect the KKK, when historical Fact, ( posted above ) would be on the contrary?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Yes and a politician would never do anything for political gain.
at that time the US government was completely benevolent and didn't do anything shady at all.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by DAVID64
 



Practice what you preach. Throw away your guns. If you are so dead set against people owning firearms then be ready to back it up with actions that will get others to follow. Post a video of you smashing your guns with a sledge hammer. We're waiting.


Why? Why should I do any such thing?

I am not against law abiding sane citizens from owning firearms. Why should I get rid of mine because I don't think that the insane should be armed?




GUNS needs to be BANNED for the general populas NOW! Those are your words in your opening. You are a member of the general public so yours should be taken also. It sounds like you're saying ban guns from everyone. How do you filter out the guy who just caught his wife cheating and is buying the gun for revenge, from the one who is getting it for home defense? When you start throwing around generalities like that, you've put us all on the same list. So, more legislation? Criminals will have guns and the goodguys empty handed waiting for the police to get there in 20 minutes or so. I agree nutballs and gangs shouldn't have guns, but taking them away from all of us is not the answer.

edit on 11-1-2011 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Reply to post by whatukno
 


1871 is also the year Stanly found Livingstone.

Coincidence? I think not.

Really, do you have any proof other than "coincidence" and Moore's cartoon?

Grant may have been a drunk but he signed the act that killed the Klan then headed a gun-toting group with a bunch of other Union abolitionists. They were all secret bigots?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 



GUNS needs to be BANNED for the general populas NOW! Those are your words in your opening.


Those weren't my words pal, I only have one account here. Maybe you need to re read the OP and my contributions to this thread.


edit on 1/11/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Actually if there was MORE gun training, more hands on interaction with parents and responsible teachers concerning guns, I think that would improve matters.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralAwesome
reply to post by autowrench
 


Whether it was mind control or something else, it is odd that Loughner went to high school in a town with a small CIA airfield.

Marana home to SF/CIA airfield.


I hear you. I have heard that he, was thrown out of the military... and that he was recruited by the military. Which one is true? He looks like a mind controlled patsy, but I could be wrong. That being said, here is what I think on him obtaining a gun;

Those who sell guns need to have an obtainable database of people who have severe mental problems. Anyone with any violence in their records does not need a gun. The last gun I bought was in Indiana, a .22 Derringer, and I had to wait three days for an FBI check on my records. Now I have a criminal record, and a mental health record, I am diagnosed Bi-Polar, which I don't necessarily agree with, but there is no violence in my medical, or police records, so the gun was sold to me. A friend at the same time also bought a gun, a used .38 special, and he has an arrest record for assault. He was turned done for a gun. I thought at the time the system worked pretty well. BTW, my friend went out and bought a gun from a friend of his, so he got one anyway.

That is my point here too, anyone, if one goes to the right place, can get a gun. There is simply no way to ban or take away all of the guns in America. One the positive side of this argument, our guns keep us free, keep us from being taken over like the Brits and others who gave up their guns. We can protect our homes from predators and robbers, women can protect themselves from rape. We can hunt and kill animals for food, and to cull the herd, which would multiply fast without hunting. Admiral Yamamoto was once asked, shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack, what is the feasibility of an invasion of American soil? He replied that "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." And he was correct too. Good or bad, we will keep our guns, people, and will not stand still for any ban on guns.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 



Hollow-point bullets for example. Also known as cop killers, they are illegal for a person to own.


Wrong, friend. So called cop killers are Teflon coated bullets, or jacketed bullets, not hollow points. A hollow point would smash flat on hitting police armor.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


It's just some dumb kid from 4chan, nothing more.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Lunatic Pandora
 


In fact it does, see, strangely, the NRA was established the same year the KKK was deemed a terrorist organization.

It's not a coincidence. Just look up the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and you will know that the NRA is and always has been a front for the Klu Klux Klan.


I will "KNOW"?

42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Civil Rights Act of 1871)
GENERAL
A person states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if he alleges that the defendant deprived him of a constitutional right while acting "under color" of state law. Specifically, § 1983 provides that:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.



www.elinfonet.com...



The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (aka the Civil Rights Act of 1871)
Guest Author - Sylvia Cochran

What began as the Ku Klux Klan Act is now more appropriately known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This bit of legislation saw the light of day when the American Civil War was over and the country was on the mend. Healing had begun and the goal was to move on as a united nation that would leave the divisiveness that caused the Civil War behind. While in the past brother may have picked up a weapon against brother, the goal was now to have brothers become one another’s keepers.

It was in this atmosphere that the workings of the Ku Klux Klan were seen as a direct threat to this unity. In the Deep South the Klan was known for the unspeakable acts it still perpetrated against the southern African Americans yet because of stereotypes that were still strong within the population and also the elected officials, there was not much done to protect the citizens from racially motivated abuse and mayhem.

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 sought to rectify this shameful situation by giving civil rights protection to African Americans who lived in the area that was under the control of the Klan and its sympathizers. It is interesting to note that the Act does not give any newfangled rights that were not already in existence. What it did change, however, was the availability of legal remedies. While in the past the African American living in the South had to content with mutely standing by while crosses were burned in front of their homes, women were pelted with rotten eggs, and children were intimidated by the men in the white sheets, suddenly there was a legal mandate to prosecute these criminal activities that appeared to hold an entire region hostage.

No longer forced to be legally silent, the African American now had the doors to the state and federal courts flung wide open and was able to bring grievances to a judge and jury. The creation of a legal liability that permitted injured parties to sue the perpetrators suddenly turned the tables and emboldened a group of citizens that thus far were considered silent victims.

Immediately following the passage of the Act, there appeared to be little legal effect. Victimized citizens were still cowering in fear, and the idea of presenting their grievances in a courtroom that may have been presided over by the Klan’s Grand Wizard himself – or pleading to a jury that may have been loyal Klan supporters – held little if any appeal. Yet what the Act did accomplish was the setting of legal precedence that would spring into action in the year 1961 when Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 became the Supreme Court decision that would stand the legal system on its head and has shaped our understanding of civil rights and the legal remedies that exist ever since.

www.bellaonline.com...
Looked it up twice ;took one article even from a female liberal perspective...

I still do not "KNOW" the klan was deemed a terrorist organization; Nor do I "KNOW" the Nra was started as a front.

Seems that NRA KKK connection was made popular among libs by tub-o- lard michael moores bowling for columbine hitpiece.:




August 27, 2003
Bowling for Michael Moore
By Jim Dallas

I finally got around to seeing Michael Moore's Academy-award-winning documentary Bowling for Columbine.

Even conservative critics acknowledged that the film is hilarious; but the NRA wasn't happy. They complained that use of video shot at a NRA convention in North Carolina was inappropriately presented as footage at the NRA meeting in Denver held shortly after the Columbine tragedy. This is (technically) a legitimate gripe, although it's not particularly uncommon for television news broadcasters to use stock footage and I don't think it seriously undermines Moore's point.

But most of the NRA's fire is reserved for a segment which ties the explosion of gun ownership in the 19th century to racism:

Another outrageous sequence in Moore`s supposedly "non-fiction motion picture," tries to associate NRA with the Ku Klux Klan and depicts an NRA member assisting in a Klan cross burning. The rationale? NRA was founded in 1871—the year the KKK was declared an illegal organization. The absurd connection is intentional. It`s Michael Moore`s idea of humor.

An honest documentary would record that NRA was founded by former Union Army officers who fought a war to bring an end to slavery. It would record that Civil War veteran Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside was the Association`s first president. It would record that the man who signed the act making the Klan an illegal organization later became NRA`s eighth president—Ulysses S. Grant.

A true documentary would note that NRA`s early history was written by figures who had not only fought to end slavery, but who would later oppose the persecution of freedmen. Such a man would assume command of the Fifth Military District, and he would then remove governors in Texas and Louisiana for failing to oppose the KKK. That man later became NRA`s ninth president—Gen. Philip H. Sheridan.

To be clear, the line connecting the NRA to the Ku Klux Klan might be gratuitous. But it probably isn't as far from the truth as the NRA wants to admit; lots of Union soldiers were racists (and let us not forget that the Klan was not just anti-black but more broadly neo-Confederate; one could be a racist but against the Klan simply by virtue of being a Damnyankee or "scalawag"). And just because the organization had presidents like Burnside, Sheridan, and Grant doesn't exactly prove that its members were squeaky-clean.

But in any case, the fact that the NRA seizes upon one flippant joke in one of the film's lighter scenes shows, I think, just how desperate they are. The larger point made by the "Brief History of the United States" cartoon is that white culture in the United States has been incredibly paranoid and fearful. And in general, this is spot on.

(One might also suppose that the NRA - of which Michael Moore is a lifetime member - might be grateful that the film explicitly points out that some of the first gun control laws were racist attempts to disarm the black community.)

It's also downright silly to deny that white racism is partly to blame for America's fascination with guns. Many gunowners (and particularly the worst ones, in my experience) are ones who think that owning a gun will protect them from the "criminal element" (Warning! Racially Loaded Term!) of society.

In order to check this idea, I did some back-of-the-envelope data analysis using GSSDirs, an incomparable research tool which allows University Web users to analyze data from NORC's General Social Survey. True to my expectations:

* Gun- owners are more likely to support racial segregation than non-owners.

* White gun-owners are considerably less likely to say that they are "close" to blacks. Indeed, according to my analysis, white gun owners are equally likely to espouse racist (49.5%) and non-racist (50.5%) attitudes toward blacks; only a third of non-gun owners admit to not liking black people.

* Gun owners (and especially white gun owners) tend to say they feel safer in their community than non-gun owners (despite clear evidence that guns provide a false sense of security).


I don't mean, of course, to cast any aspersions on the majority of gun owners, who, I think we can be sure, are not closet racists. Indeed, most gunowners and many NRA members are genuine sportsmen.

Overall, I think, Bowling is a fair treatment of the issue which plays to neither gun-rughts or gun-control ideologues. I think it is one of the best pieces in recent years to show just how foolish the gun-control ninnies are - after all, Canada has lots of guns but very few murders. The problem is clearly cultural - but not the kind of "pop culture" red herrings conservatives and Joe Lieberman whine about. It calls the NRA and Charlton Heston for their clear insensitivity towards gun victims.

Incidentally, the NRA thinks that Bowling is "un-American" because, in short, it dares to argue that the reason everyday Americans keep killing each other with guns is... because there's something wrong with the way everyday Americans think and act.

So much for "Guns don't kill people, People kill People!"

Again - I happen to believe that the right to own a firearm is an important Constitutional right and that further gun control legislation is wrong. But, I also happen to think that private groups like the NRA (and more importantly, the government) are not doing enough to push gun safety, individual responsibility, and a strong community ethic.
Posted by Jim Dallas at August 27, 2003 06:25 PM | TrackBack

Comments

i finally saw it last week as well. i think the part that struck me most was the montage of all the old footage from countries who's leaders we've helped overthrow. ending with the wtc footage was powerful and brought me to tears.
Posted by: anna at August 28, 2003 12:38 PM

You should read Rachel Lucas' review of the film. Probably not what you would expect, if you've read any of her previous comments about her hatred of Michael Moore.

www.rachellucas.com...
Posted by: Courtney at August 28, 2003 05:34 PM

You said: "Gun- owners are more likely to support racial segregation than non-owners. "

Answer: Gun owners are much too large a group to castigate in this manner. Do you include black gun owners in this suggestive statement?

You said: "White gun-owners are considerably less likely to say that they are "close" to blacks"

Answer: Much of the black population is concentrated in areas where anti-gun laws make whites less likely to own guns. Ergo, non-gun owning whites are more likely to know blacks.

Conversely, areas where anti-gun laws are less prevalent have greater concentrations of whites that are more likely to own guns and less black population.

Ergo, your assertion, even if true, is meaningless.

You said: "Gun owners (and especially white gun owners) tend to say they feel safer in their community than non-gun owners (despite clear evidence that guns provide a false sense of security)."

That rather goes against the Moore's assertion that we American gun owners are so fearful now doesn't it. Your essay is self-contradictory.

I do believe however that most of the anti-gun crowd is much too irresponsible and hypocritical to possess firearms. Senator Diane Feinstein, who carries a handgun on her person, is a good example of this.
Posted by: Norman at September 12, 2003 04:29 PM

Whoever said Moore's depiction of the NRA arising from and acting in cahoots with the KKK as it burned crosses and murdered blacks was a joke? Did Moore ever say that? I don't think so.

What he DID say is that "Every fact in the film is true. Absolutely every fact in the film is true. And anybody who says otherwise is committing an act of libel."

I'll grant you this: the animated sequence is meant to be funny by radically over-simplifying U.S. history. After all, that's what makes it possible to tell the whole story in less than three minutes. But Moore's demonization of the NRA isn't an over-simplification as there's absolutely no truth to it at all. It's just a lie.

What IS funny, I'm afraid, is your extremely pathetic attempt to cover for this liar. OF COURSE there were racist Union soldiers just like there were racists throughout society. That's hardly a justification for Moore's deception.

In any event, this is just one example of many where Moore completely lies to his audience. No doubt about it.

Posted by: Jim Heller at October 7, 2003 09:47 PM




www.burntorangereport.com...

Before you flip out and turn the article around to be used against me/us.be sure to go through the comments which respond to the holes in the blog piece better than I can....
edit on 11-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by 46ACE because: "answer" changed to "respond to": added



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I think it might be a bit paranoid to assume it's some fishing operation, but I definitely thought from the outset that it was a troll...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I believe I painted the NRA as a front for the KKK.

Not my fault that the truth hurts.

The gun lobby and the NRA wants to make sure that everyone no matter what has access to firearms. Killers, drug dealers, gang members, and even militia members. Make sure that everyone is armed to the teeth.

My point is, maybe the gun nuts are wrong and not EVERYONE should have access to firearms but the law abiding and sane.

The post right above mine here is exactly what I am talking about.
edit on 1/11/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)


Given the sheer ignorance exhibited in your posts in this thread, your sanity must be questioned.

You should turn in your guns in the mean time until you have had multiple mental health screenings just to be on the safe side.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Reply to post by GeneralAwesome
 


Very true. His beliefs are delusional and he repeatedly discounts historical record as some being an elaborate conspiracy perpetrated at the government level.

Hints of an inflated self importance can be found in his acknowledgement of owning firearms while simultaneously seeking to prevent the ownership of firearms by others.

Delusional and egomaniacal.

Should be reported as a potential risk to himself and perhaps others right away.

Won't be long before he begins rambling about the moon landing and grammar.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 





Actually if there was MORE gun training, more hands on interaction with parents and responsible teachers concerning guns, I think that would improve matters.


Correct. Switzerland certainly shows how this can work. Gun Shooting seems to be their national sport. They have more guns per capita and less crime.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join