Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out!

page: 6
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by scorpiosin
Glad I sold all my stuff that was on that list a few months back


wink, wink




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Last I heard this was America. For what ever reason I want to own a stock pile of AK47
is none of your god damn business.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by scorpiosin
Glad I sold all my stuff that was on that list a few months back


wink, wink


You too huh? Damn shame I lost all of mine in a tragic boating accident.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 





I wouldn't be so optimistic about it if I were you. It has been done many times before in countries like Australia and England... they know exactly how it needs to be done and how to make it successful.


The difference is though, certainly in the UK, not many of us had guns in the first place. It really wasn't a big deal to us. USA on the other hand, gun culture is huge over there.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
haha- right...Obama. The President who actually EXPANDED ownership rights.

Oh, btw- did you know that in May of 1986 Reagan signed a bill into law that prohibited the registration of new machine guns for civilian use.

Read that again- Reagan was the ultimate gun banning president. The ban wasn't lifted until 2004.

Followed by an expansion of gun rights by Obama.

Go back to bed, you dim witted, misinformed, illogical bobble heads



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


Have you learned nothing from anything? Liberals and conservatives are all the same!! Working for the same sick government we are under. They all are in on every sick thing that will happen to us! No one can be trusted! The process of something is just what want us too think will make the difference on passing laws or signing treaty's. Now the real question is "how long". :/



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Oh noies! He, the dark anti-god, will take away guns with telescopes, fast-reloading mechanisms and so on! How could he?!


Maybe because those are stupid things? Whatfor do you need a telescope on your self-defense-weapon? For something like "active" self-defense over a mile away?

Rrrrrright.

No. Demanding to have the rights to wear army-style-weapons is nothing anybody should be proud of.


I want a gun with a telescope!


SHOOT THE MOON!




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
unsourced article from a milita website..

I guess it is too difficult to link directly to the bill?

nra propaganda would be my guess...get the people to run out and buy more guns at the fear that they will be soon removed...they do play the marketing game well.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
reply to post by Komodo
 


So all that's happened is someone selling a book has listed some guns from a list in 2007, and the whole internet believes it? And clicks to his website. And his book advert.

Wow. Man, people are so easily played.


that's..

what it looks like to me



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
unsourced article from a milita website..

I guess it is too difficult to link directly to the bill?

nra propaganda would be my guess...get the people to run out and buy more guns at the fear that they will be soon removed...they do play the marketing game well.


exactly what I'm thinking or it's wanna-be militia group that wants to stir the pot ..

I hardly think a blog is a news article which I've had threads removed because I didn't link my source to a news article before as well.. so why is this thread being kept up ?? it should be locked down like a sub in the south pacific !!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The site in reference refers to 'Drake' who according to his military background, DD214 form posted on the site, he left the military as a specialist E-4 which is just above a 'private'.
Hope folks have enough common sense not to 'register' with that site.
If not ex-military, one wouldn't understand the lingo.
Now you do.

Didn't see anything about pellet guns, sling shots.
Intelligence provacateurs in action.
Looking for a few good fools.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Oh noies! He, the dark anti-god, will take away guns with telescopes, fast-reloading mechanisms and so on! How could he?!


Maybe because those are stupid things? Whatfor do you need a telescope on your self-defense-weapon? For something like "active" self-defense over a mile away?

Rrrrrright.

No. Demanding to have the rights to wear army-style-weapons is nothing anybody should be proud of.


For your edification:



My biggest question is what are they going to do about Switzerland, where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun.
edit on 21-11-2012 by RedmoonMWC because: to add



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
this will be a very bloody civil war given the fact that a large number of the people that own guns will never give them up and have been practicing diligently. to quote Anthony McAuliffe "nuts"
edit on 21-11-2012 by rockoperawriter because: nuts



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Probably very late for the partisan argument.

Just wanted to stop by, and take an extra kick at both of you for thinking either administration would have prevented this list from coming to fruition.

That'll be all.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Isee1111
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Jimmyx is 100% dead on. If you think your right to bear arms is going to protect you from the U.S. military you are insanely naive. Once you are deemed a threat to the country you will lose any credibility with the people in the military, and the larger public. From that point on you are fair game.

Your movements will be watched from space, your communications will be monitored, your supply lines will be halted, your members tagged and interrogated at will. After all that you will be droned, or have a visit from a precision missile fired from hundreds of miles away. After that, if you're unlucky enough to still be breathing, you'll receive a personal visit from highly trained ground forces.

In the 1700s when the public and military alike only had archaic rifles it may have seemed reasonable to think the public could protect themselves from their own government, but now it's just laughable.


edit on 21-11-2012 by Isee1111 because: (no reason given)


I agree with that to a point - and make no mistake, you won't see armed rebellion coming from me...I have an infant son. I'm more likely to deal with some freedoms being trampled and high taxes than I am leaving my baby behind without a father (or in an internment camp himself), but my answer still stands. The constitution doesn't provide for the right to bear arms so we can shoot pheasants. That's why there is no constitutional logic behind limiting arms to handguns and pump shotguns.

Further, 100 million armed citizens is a hell of a lot more than Iraq had. If we had that many gun-owning citizens (about a third of the county), even the US military would have to resort to scare tactics and terrorism to get the population compliant.

Or what about the magic invasion by the Chinese some people think is coming? Those of us who understand that even a single ship or aircraft breeching our borders would be a greater feat than the Great Wall font worry about it, but if it somehow was possible - would they bother with the expense and massive loss of manpower trying to invade a nation where every other house throughout the entire nation had sights pointed at the invaders? Not a chance.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jssaylor2007
Tothetenth, if you are going to shut down a perfectly legitimate thread for being "too similar to this one," then you might as well shut this thread down for being a HOAX and having no sources?


EXACTLY .. !!

thx you jssaylor~!

he/she/they already shut it down, regardless of my hasty post due to being at work; .. perhaps I should have put a new title on it.. if that still being the case, then 1/2 of ALL ATS threads should be trashed ~!



oh .. there is a source off the 'news article' .. but the article itself has no source .. but .. w/e ..

I call HOAX~!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
No more trustworthy source than a militia's blog.




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
ATS motto DENY OP.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


oh .. trust me my brother, i must certainly KNOW there's a gun grab going on ..

and whether or not it gets here on a USA sized scale is the question, the people that put him in power KNOW it's the 1 thing that will tip the scales in their favor...the PTB will only need to sit back in their leather chairs and point in our direction and say ..

"we didn't fire the first shot......we just responded in defense of what was already in written and approved by .. YOUR congress.......those you elected...we never posted any such EO or passed any law STATING to ban the weapons on that list ..

but apparently you wanted a war ....so now you have one..
"

it's like 2 people in a relationship and the one pointing the finger and screaming at them because the one 'cheated on them for committing the act' but, the one pointing the finger never in 2 years did they respond to any type of intimacy with their partner.

who was the real one that pushed them into being unfaithful ?

hmmm...and others might say they had a choice....really .. as a human being who lives in the flesh and all it's desires for close human interaction/love/affection.. did they really have a choice when they met that other person they became close to when their partner refused to?

...perhaps the person who withheld their intimacy KNEW it would only be a matter of time before 'the hook' took and the bait was set so they could have an 'out' of a decision they should have never made in the first place..

thus the reason I call HOAX on this article .. however, the psyop has already done it's job, if you do a google on the exact title .. and the net being what it is.. has already infected the minds of those with an axe to grind.

and this thread continues to be up... interesting to say the least. ^^



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PMNOrlando
I ran across this article tonight and it bothers me because someone at work had mentioned that if BO got re-elected one of the first thing he'd go after was our guns. I'd didn't know much about guns or think much of it at the time, but when I heard that within 12 hours of being re-elected he signed some sort of U.N. Treaty or promissary note or something (maybe someone here can shed more light on this than I can)

Does this bother anyone else on ATS? I don't want to see our country go the way of China.

American National Militia Website
americannationalmilitia.com...


Ahhh well if the American National Militia website says it's true, without a link to any source, then it must be true... not one of those (hundreds) of lies about government banning guns that gets spread around the internet...

Cause I'm sure the OP wouldn't post a lie...



new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join