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.

 

Kerry Anti Second Amendment

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Yes I know Kerry made a big deal out of having himself photographed hunting upland game. But,that photo op aside,lets look at the record. John Kerry's record on gun voting rights is, unlike the rest of his voting record amazingly consistent. He has recieved a 100% rating from the Brady Campaign (HCI) and from the Coalition to stop Gun Violence. He has voted against protecting firearms manufactures againts junk lawsuits. He has proclaimed his support for the renewal of the Brady ACT, the hi-cap magazine ban and ban on so called assault weapons.
Is Kerry pro-hunting?he has recieved a 100% rating from both the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals. Niether of these organizations consider hunting as a worthwhile, legal or moral pursuit.Is Kerry a hunter when the camera isnt rolling? Kerry has even managed to surpass Ted Kennedy in anti-gun votes. In fact when he was on the camapaign trail,he made the effort to return to Washington to cast votes inimical to American gun owners and firearms manufacturers.

So, whats the big deal if Kerry becomes President? Many say that he could be easily over-ridden by a republican-controled senate and/or house.
That is,assuming that the republicans will have control of either or both parties after this election. But most important as president Kerry would have the opportunity to put up his favorite people for Supreme Court positions...vacancies that might likely occor soon, since several Justices are getting on in years or failing in health. And who might Kerry's choice be?
One name that comes to mind is that of Hillary Clinton AKA the smartest woman in the world
Another name that comes to mind is the other senator from New York Charles Schummer. Want more fun possibilites? How about Dianne Feinstien or mister wonderful himself Ted Kennedy?
Imagine a Supreme Court vote on second Amendment rights with one or several of those deep thinkers on the high bench. How long do you think it would take before your Remington 870 is banned as an "Assault weapon" or your scoped Ruger M77 MkII varmint/target as a "sniper rifle?" as for your handgun...really now,why would you want to endanger your family and neighbors by owning one of those?

Ask your self "Will this candidate stand up for my right to self-defense?'' If the canidate does not trust you with the tools of self defense,be it socalled assualt rifles,handgun,rifle,shotgun or whatever,that candidate essentially does not acknowledge your right to live.

There is 80 million plus gun owners in america all voting age.make your vote count




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   
There is no way, in my opinion, if Kerry gets into office, he will defend the 2nd amendment. He has clearly showed us that he does not care about the opinions and views of the 80+ million gunowners in America. Is he caring about the common intrest of the people??



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
John Kerry along with the ACLU don't even believe in gun rights, but they believe in racism.
If you look on the ACLU's website, www.aclu.org you will not find one example of the ACLU defending the 2nd ammendment.
The gunowners of America are the last line of defense.
Imagine what would happen if a country invaded Los Angeles. The military wouldn't have to fight. The gangsters would kill them.
Or if they invaded Texas. There is an average of 3.2 guns per household in Texas. Several of which are long range rifles. Not a good plan.

I seriously hope Kerry changes his views.
For freedom,
- Tass



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Guns are our last line of defence against government. Without guns we would not be able to overthrow an oppressive US government let alone defend ourselves.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
While I believe I will vote for Kerry, I do support the 2nd amendment. If law abiding citizens are not allowed to own arms, only the government and criminals will have them. The government needs to be kept in check by the (armed) citizens and law abiding citizens need to protect themselves from criminals (even when that criminal is the government itself).

If some of you guys are worried about hunting, go hunting on 'K' street in Washington. A lot of filthy animals there. They are Bush's and the Congresses favorite pets. (or is it the other way around?)



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Look, the reason Kerryvoted for those laws is because they outlawed guns that normal people don't need. I am a gun owner, and I joined the military right out of high school. I understand weapons, and what people need and they don't I also know politics, and Kerry is smart enough to know that outlawing guns would be suicide.

I am the heir to an extensive gun collection. My step-grandfather has a collection his father started, and it includes guns that go all the way back to the civil war era. I am proud of this collection, and honored that someday I will own it. Face it, the Remington 870 IS an assault weapon. What the hell animals are you hunting that you need an 870 to take them down, whales? Maybe bear hunting, but not if you want to keep the carcass for mounting. Ever shot a deer with an 870? There'd be a hole big enough to put your head in.

Listen to me closely: no one is going to take away your hand guns. It's not going to happen. Ever. Yes, there are people who want to take them away, but they are in the minority, and Kerry and Kennedy are not interested in taking them, I assure you.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   
You would probably like to have the assault rifle if an oppressive government took over the USA (which is really the whole reason to keep the 2nd amendment). Just my opinion.

-Attero

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Attero Auctorita]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
No offense to you, Attero, but they already have. The Patriot Act is already taking away our rights faster than we can blink, my friend. Face it, it's already here.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita
You would probably like to have the assault rifle if an oppressive government took over the USA (which is really the whole reason to keep the 2nd amendment). Just my opinion.


You can still buy civilian assault weapons with the ban, certain features are just illegal...flash suppressors, larger magazines, etc. These things are basically cosmetic, and I don't think a 30rd magazine is needed for deer hunting. Even so, you can still legally purchase preban magazines all over the place...if you truly think that your AR-15 with 30 round magazine and flash suppressor will help you take over an oppressive government...well good luck to you.
Don't get me wrong, I strongly support second ammendment rights, and the assault weapons ban seems stupid to me...but it really doesn't affect any weapon functionality. Just don't use the argument of how you need an assault weapon to fight back against the government; that's ridiculous. Just say you like all the cool features or whatever...but don't think you would stand a chance against the government.
Back in the old days of our fore fathers, the second amendment was written to arm the state militias...in those days, the state militias actually could use their weapons to fight back against tyranny in the government. These days, the federal government runs everything...there are no more real state militias, and if the government wants to be oppressive, they will be, and there's nothing you can do about it with an assault rifle.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   
almost NO ONE supports the second amendment, including many NRA members, who parrot charlton heston's call to "enforce existing laws". yeah sure...."existing laws" made by people who want civilians to be defenseless and helpless against authority.

the day they think they can take your guns, they will. and 90 percent of americans will meekly surrender them....just look at austrailia.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita
You would probably like to have the assault rifle if an oppressive government took over the USA (which is really the whole reason to keep the 2nd amendment). Just my opinion.


Back in the old days of our fore fathers, the second amendment was written to arm the state militias...in those days, the state militias actually could use their weapons to fight back against tyranny in the government. These days, the federal government runs everything...there are no more real state militias, and if the government wants to be oppressive, they will be, and there's nothing you can do about it with an assault rifle.


I think you are right no one man with a assualt rifle is going to make a difference. But you have to remember there are 80 million gun owners in the united states. Iraq is the most recent evidence of what lightly armed insurgents can do to the strongest military on earth. Thats only a couple hundred or thousand of them now imagine 80million of those insurgents. Imagine the damage that many even lightly armed people could do to any military. Im sure if the American people ever came under such a attack by our goverment you would also see sympathetic countries that would help further arm the the american people with even better weapons such as RPGs and the such which we all know how much of a pain even those old tech weapons can be for a modern armed force.

Victor was right

If 90 percent of americans hand over there guns one day with out any protest It will be a sad day for America. I cant say I can disagree that alot of people would just hand over their guns though. I would like to think I would be in that 10 percent though



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I disagree with the premise and it's conclusions, but I appreciate the effort.

Especially considering one could easily reverse it, change a few names and assert the much more likely scenario that Bush will manage to get a woman's right to reproductive soverenty outlawed in the next four years resulting in dangerous and deadly alley and home abortions and the incarceration (literally and figuratively) of American women.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There is 80 million plus gun owners in america all voting age.make your vote count


There's upwards of 150 million women in America. Make your vote count too.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I disagree with the premise and it's conclusions, but I appreciate the effort.

Especially considering one could easily reverse it, change a few names and assert the much more likely scenario that Bush will manage to get a woman's right to reproductive soverenty outlawed in the next four years resulting in dangerous and deadly alley and home abortions and the incarceration (literally and figuratively) of American women.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There is 80 million plus gun owners in america all voting age.make your vote count


There's upwards of 150 million women in America. Make your vote count too.


Thanks for the complimant even though you do not agree with me.
I do not expect everyone to agree with me and welcome other peoples opinions on the subject. I was trying also to make a point that politicians tend to shy away or try to have it both ways on important topics that effect alot of people. People on both sides do this but I was focusing on Gun Control in this post but the same could be said about birth control as you stated. Wasnt it Kerry that stated that he thought abortion was moralely wrong but he would not impose his belief on other people. This is a perfect example of a politican trying to have it both ways and make everyone happy. Bush and most other politicians are guilty of this type of stuff too though it may be on other issues

I just wanted people to realize that just because you see pictures of Kerry with a gun and of him hunting ,it does not mean that he is a surporter of your second amendment right. People should really research a persons record when it comes to a topic that is important to them rather then what they say when they are on a campaign trail.George Bush Sr's No new taxes is a good example of that we all know how that campaign promise turned out.These people will say what ever they think the most people/voters want to hear.

Some of those 150million women are gun owners too



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
If you give them an inch...

If Kerry gets into office I wouldnt necessarily say that he would take our guns away, but I think it would be the beginning of the end. They will start by telling us what guns normal people dont need and then effectively regulate guns into non-existence for the average citizen. Clinton tried this with the assault weapons ban; thank god there was a ten year limit on that.

Yes, I own an AR15 and yes, I own high capacity magazines. I highly doubt that if it ever comes down to it, be it NWO or whatever, it will make any difference. I bought that gun for fun and because it was cool. So what if I dont use it for hunting? Nowhere in the second amendment does it say we can arm ourselves against wild animals only.

As for Kerrys stance on the second amendment, I found this post from AR15.com interesting.


. . .
When candidate Kerry talks about his undying support for the Second Amendment, there are two words he never utters. In announcing what he says he recognizes as a "right," Kerry never utters the word "individual." And more importantly, he never repeats the all-important word of the framers--"keep." As we all know, the Second Amendment says in part, " . . . The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Keeping arms: That means ordinary men and women owning guns; possessing guns; keeping firearms for whatever peaceable reasons we might have.

You wont find the full phrase--"the right to keep and bear arms"--anywhere on his Web site, or in Kerry`s speeches, his floor statement, his media interviews or press releases.

Kerry`s version of the Second Amendment is that Americans only have the right to bear arms. That verbal sleight of hand fits right in with what the ban-the-gun crowd wants--a future declaration by a Kerry-packed U.S. Supreme Court that the Second Amendment was never intended as an individual right, but that it merely allows the states to muster forces to serve in the National Guard.

Proof of that trickery came during Kerry`s Senate speech supporting the Clinton gun ban on semi-automatic firearms. Kerry told the Senate and the nation, "For those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military. And we welcome them."
. . .


[edit on 7/22/04 by para]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think you are right no one man with a assualt rifle is going to make a difference. But you have to remember there are 80 million gun owners in the united states. Iraq is the most recent evidence of what lightly armed insurgents can do to the strongest military on earth. Thats only a couple hundred or thousand of them now imagine 80million of those insurgents. Imagine the damage that many even lightly armed people could do to any military.


This is true, but if the government ever were to plan an "attack" on our own citizens, martial law, throw people in camps...whatever...they would ask to take the guns away first. And then you have to think with the bright people in our nation, how many of those 80 million would readily hand over their guns? How many more would gladly join the side of the government, against their own people? Probably a lot more than you would think. Plus, there's not much that random gun owners can do...there are no more state militias to defend our fellow people, there is no organization of gun owners ready for a battle.

EDIT:
Just wanted to add that George Bush is in favor of the assault weapons ban too, we gotta keep those 30 round magazines out of the hands of terrorists!

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
i was under the impression that the national guard was a state militia?

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Good post from AR15.com Para I never picked up on the way Kerry had phrase his words when he talked about Gun Control.

Kerry`s Senate speech supporting the Clinton gun ban on semi-automatic firearms. Kerry told the Senate and the nation, "For those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military. And we welcome them."

I found that very interesting. As for the Kerry-packed US Supreme Court its nice to know other people are worried about that too. That I find could be the scariest thing for the Gun owners of America.

The Second Amendment is not that complicated

" A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed"

Our founding fathers were not stupid they didnt make this the second on the list for nothing



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
i was under the impression that the national guard was a state militia?


Yes, but this is run by the federal government. There are no more private militias that are run by the people (unless you count the little "militia" clubs with about 15 members that meet in the woods and shoot guns at trees)...if the government ordered the national guard to round up their fellow citizens and throw them into camps, they'd do it.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

, there is no organization of gun owners ready for a battle.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Shoktek]


I wouldnt be so sure of that that let me introduce you to the Michigan Militia
michiganmilitia

There is a host of others such as Bay County free and Independent militia,Macomb county-MMCW, Lenawwee county,Washtenaw county-MMCW and a bunch more

I cant say I agree with the views of all these guys some may be a bit extreme ,But I would like to let people know that these are not all crazy nuts as some would lead you to believe.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I wouldnt be so sure of that that let me introduce you to the Michigan Militia
michiganmilitia


Yea..these are the clubs of kooks I was talking about. Many members of these groups are crazy white supremacist types, at least from some stories I have heard. I doubt they would really pose any threat to the US Army if it came down to it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join