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.

 

Obama to Deliver Gun-grabbing Speech Soon

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

Why are you asking me these questions? I'm a three-gun owner. But I'm not rabid and I see that there are clearly some issues that concern some citizens of this country. Shouting over these concerns by waving the Constitution, clamping down your mind, and refusing to partake in and discussion isn't going to make this debate go away.




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



That's oversimplifying it a bit.


No, I think the 2nd was written with simplicity in mind...
I don't think they wanted the people fighting a rogue Government or foreign force with slingshots...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Due to Az it will probably have something to do with a mental health evaluation.. the first question being " do you visit ATS or any conspiracy sites online"


WHomever said something about permits.. err.. I already have to have a permit for both long and hand guns. Its called a FOID card with my picture thats linked to my drivers license. Trust me dear, its no longer a "right" in some states.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Maybe what they want is to drive us to the point of sounding nuttier and nuttier. At if it reaches a boiling point, there will be no debate. That's what I'm worried about.

"Grabbing our guns" would be a long, drawn out process. And if that process were to start, I would hope that gun advocates maintained their calm. Sorry, but I see a lot of pretty strong language and threats against the government we're thus far only theorizing wants to do everything from A to Z to you flying around. That's more likely to infuriate and/or scare those who disagree or to cause some sort of horrific event that will get the guns grabbed.

This speech hasn't even been delivered and people are appearing very angry and closed. What if the steps taken simply do help law enforcement to identify illegal activities? Or suss out a nutter who wants to kill someone right now...no waiting period. I understand the concerns and the paranoia (see paragraph 2 A to Z)...I have a good bit of it myself. But refusing to even hear someone out seems ignorant to me.

Anyway, thanks for listening.
edit on 1/27/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


The intent of the 2nd, as distasteful as it sounds, is to arm the people in a war possibly against their own Government and it's associated military..

What people are asking therefore, is that one side hands some of their weapons AND gives full details of their whereabouts and types of weapons owned, to a Government that may very well be their enemy..

That would be akin to the British giving full details of all their soldiers and weapons positions during WW11..



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 





First, let's be realistic and face it...the founding fathers didn't envision a country this large with automatic weapons available online or virtual arsenals in every (or even most) homes.



You sure about that? Are you sure?


We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;

---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.



Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe,



[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. ---Richard Henry Lee


See that's the problem, you gun grabbers want to twist the Bill of Rights anyway you can to establish your only basis of argument, but you forgot one major fact. That the founding fathers did have incite on all topics within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And their thoughts and views were well archived.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 



Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe,


Yes, as I said..There should really be NO limits to what weapons "the people" have...

Though it's understandable that would be hard to manage...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


~Lucidity Has a difficult time discerning fact from fiction? The 2nd Amendment, and the archived comments made by the founding fathers is very clear in their intent in regards to the 2nd.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I'm a gun grabber
See above.

No...I'm just someone who looks at things maybe a little bit differently than you do. Thanks to you both for the other data, of which I am fully aware, and that still doesn't change my fundamental point here. Stop acting insane about it. Other Americans have concerns, and those need to be addressed in some manner other than shouting them down.

Being prepared to defend your home, family, and country means different things to different people. For some a sawed off shotgun, a rifle, and a revolver with enough with enough ammo to kill say 100 intruders are enough. For others, it's far more. More than they can ever even handle themselves, and it makes me wonder if they'd ever be willing to share those guns with fellow Americans should "that day" ever come. Say a liberal? Who finally saw the light?

With all the hateful rhetoric flying around, would you blame people for thinking that there just might be a lot of people out there who might actually want a war so they can shoot their guns at other Americans...jackbooted police, liberals, commies, and so on. If this is the case, good luck to us all.

No. They're not getting my gun. And they're damn sure not getting it for any trumped up reason...millions of which are out there on the interwebs for anyone wanting to make a case to use.

Yeah. Good luck to us all.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by backinblack
 


~Lucidity Has a difficult time discerning fact from fiction? The 2nd Amendment, and the archived comments made by the founding fathers is very clear in their intent in regards to the 2nd.


Excuse me? You're the person in this thread who doesn't actually read my posts. As you have so clearly demonstrated more than once.


Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

See that's the problem, you gun grabbers want to twist the Bill of Rights anyway you can to establish your only basis of argument,

I own three guns. As I clearly stated in my second post in this thread.

And yes, I'm sure the founders were very prescient, but I'm also damn well sure they expected the Constitution to change with the times to a degree. In fact they designed it that way. You take it very literally, and that's fine. For your purpose.

Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, and to put in it simple words even you might be able to comprehend: Stop seeming unreasonable. Take the time to listen to concerns.
edit on 1/27/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, and to put in it simple words even you might be able to comprehend: Stop seeming unreasonable. Take the time to listen to concerns.


I fully understand the concerns of the people in relation to weapons..
What bothers me though, is the "agenda" of our leaders..
They rarely have been seen to act on "our" concerns...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
dbl post
edit on 27-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

The agenda concerns me too. I hate to think some people are inadvertently fueling it with crazy talk. That's all.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by backinblack
 

The agenda concerns me too. I hate to think some people are inadvertently fueling it with crazy talk. That's all.


Yep, but take into account that I'm in Australia..
They took nearly ALL our guns based on ONE incident that was more suspicious than a $3 note...

I'd hate to see the same happen in the US..
Ohh BTW, our murder rate did NOT drop....



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

I'm aware And aware of the excuses they used and/or fabricated to do this. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Just to clear up some nonsense being batted about regarding "automatic weapons" they haven't been legal for the average citizen to own (without a very costly permit) for a long time, since oh about 1934 to be specific. Even if there were 100% legal to buy at any gun shop there is a big downside, they are absurdly expensive (example) and thus out of the reach of most Americans.

As for background checks I'm completely OK with them, in the Commonwealth of Virginia I already have to pass an on-the-spot background check as well as swear under severe penalty that I have never been committed to the care of the state in a mental health facility nor had any involvement with illegal drugs. Those steps don't bother me in the least, I was able to walk out of the store about two weeks ago with a firearm the same day because I keep my record clean and I had all the right paperwork in hand when I decided to purchase.

Even if every single person who had mental issues that made them potentially dangerous were on a list that gun stores could check against before a sale its not going to stop all the possible crimes out there; plenty of unhinged people go undiagnosed and untreated every day and no amount of checking is going to stop those folks from obtaining a firearm; the only way that group will be prevented access is a total outlawing of firearms which naturallly I oppose on the grounds that I shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of a small but deranged minority.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewman

anyway background checks can not be a bad thing even if they stop only one murder.


That sounds like an infringement to me.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by backinblack
 

The agenda concerns me too. I hate to think some people are inadvertently fueling it with crazy talk. That's all.


Yep, but take into account that I'm in Australia..
They took nearly ALL our guns based on ONE incident that was more suspicious than a $3 note...

I'd hate to see the same happen in the US..
Ohh BTW, our murder rate did NOT drop....


We'd ALL do well to remember this. It only takes one true or fakes "rallying" moment for us as well to lose what little gun rights we have left. All one has to do is review illinois law.... Obama's or the liberal testing ground.. to see what can happen everywhere. Here.. if you buy a gun with the intent to protect your body, your family or home.. and happen to shoot and kill an armed intruder.. you are can be charged with premeditated murder. There are a BUNCH of wacky gun laws coming from CHicago. Its truly incredible what will happen when the people sleep.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The worse part of all this is that if the sheriffs office, parents or community college had done their jobs and had this guy held for observation, he could not have legally bought a gun with out changing the law. ( I dont know of his past record or where he got the gun)

So in my mind, all the antigun rallying to come will be but an empty excuse to do what they have long wished.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
His way in gun banning will not be smoothly...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join