America is not banning guns and that is that.

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Friday's school shooting in Connecticut appeared to prompt a renewed effort by lawmakers to curb gun rights, as a top Democrat vowed Sunday to introduce new legislation on the first day of the new Congress next year.

"It can be done," she said on NBC's "Meet the Press." The senator, a proponent of gun control, said she expected Obama to offer his public support for the law.

"We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics," Obama himself said on Friday in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.

"It's time for the president to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do," said the New York City mayor. "This should be his No. 1 agenda."

firstread.nbcnews.com...

Looks like they're sure as hell going to try something.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
This has been her dream and goal for most of her life in Politics. She's been a driving force in California state politics for running their gun industry and ownership to a condition more restrictive than many nations outside America.

She can try anything she'd like..and I'll be amused to watch the attempt. Congress is but one of 3 Branches...and on this? All 3 must agree.

Sure..if CAN be done. Both sides could balance the budget next year and have us out of national debt within 15 years too. That CAN be done as well. Will it?
Yeah... Her's hasn't got much chance either.

If it were to pass a Republican controlled house? It won't be Republican controlled after 2014....and may never be again after that. I promise most Republicans who betrayed their base won't be re-elected and will lose their office over this vote.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
Looks like they're sure as hell going to try something.


Its nothing they don't try almost every year. Feinstein, Bloomberg, McCarthy, Lautenberg (sp?)...these are the usual suspects. They're constantly pushing gun bans that go nowhere. The fact that they're going to introduce it in the next Congress...in other words, January or February...is the key admission. They know its not going to pass, because they also know that people have a short attention span. In a week, this will not be forgotten, but it will fade as people celebrate Christmas and New Years. In the words of Rahm Emanuel, never let a crisis go to waste. That's because the politicians know you need the emotion that exists in the moment to exploit these situations.

The people to watch are Pelosi, Reid and Boehner. I've been searching their comments on the incident since it happened and none have mentioned new gun laws to my knowledge. They likely would've already done so if they were going to. If they're avoiding it now, they're not likely to push for it.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

If it were to pass a Republican controlled house? It won't be Republican controlled after 2014....and may never be again after that. I promise most Republicans who betrayed their base won't be re-elected and will lose their office over this vote.


Agreed. If the GOP goes for a knee jerk gun ban and punishes tens of millions of people who are guilty of nothing, I will never vote for them again. I'm sure I'm not alone in that, either.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd say that IS that until the Supreme Court says otherwise....and they can't just say anything they want, either. A bad law needs passed...by both houses of congress (fat chance right now, good law or bad, and that's at least 2 years out too) then it has to be used to violate someone ....(that wouldn't take too long if one were passed) .. Then it has to go through at least 3 levels of court before getting to the Supremes, who usually take the better part of a year to render much more than a ham sandwich.

So, if they actually passed something more than bad ideas in the first part of the new congress, it would be 2014 at least before the Super Court even GOT another case to MAYBE go back on saying this is an absolute individual right and CANNOT be banned, period, end of story, done.


The End.


Couldn't have said it better myself........






posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


These arguments do not matter anymore. They have failed our children. I am a mother of three, a grandmother of several, and I am 62 yrs old. I have been around guns all my life. I see NO purpose for assault weapons for protection or hunting.

I will actively join the movement to get this done as I am retired and can devote a lot of time to it.

Sorry, children but, you have abused the privelege. American mothers will not sit by idly watching their children being sacrificed so some crazy can have the "right" to get assault weapons and kill.

Nothing is perfect, but to do nothing is not going to happen anymore.
edit on 16-12-2012 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
www.examiner.com... To everyone debating this issue please read this article written by a woman 12 years ago named Mary Carpenter who has more of a "right" to speak on this issue than any of us. Thank you



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Good luck to all the fraidy-cat anti-gun sheep out there. Worst case, bottom line, this becomes a state matter.
As has already been upheld, guns and ammunition may be manufactured and sold within the confines of any state and not be subject to ANY Federal law, and rightly so.

We who live in the Red States will never be disarmed. Period.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 


When I was twelve years old, my dad came home drunk and held us hostage with a gun. When he pointed toward my mother, I got between them, and stood up to his 6ft 2 frame, with no fear. I will show the same courage as I did then for this issue. Your assault weapons have been turned on children. It will stop.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Taking guns away is not as simple as passing a law. Contrary to what the liberals think, the South would be a nightmare to confiscate guns from. The local law enforcement do not generally believe in it and will not put their comrades lives on the line to do it. This would require huge Federal law enforcement willing to do it. That would require huge amounts of money to hire/train and equip them. If it happens it will not happen anytime soon.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Hahaha. Good luck with taking assault rifles... they do serve a purpose. We need to be equally capable of defending ourselves in the event of a tyrannical government.

Even if you found yourself in a really bad intruder situation.

I will never rid of my guns.. period, end of story.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOMof3
reply to post by Helious
 


These arguments do not matter anymore. They have failed our children. I am a mother of three, a grandmother of several, and I am 62 yrs old. I have been around guns all my life. I see NO purpose for assault weapons for protection or hunting.

I will actively join the movement to get this done as I am retired and can devote a lot of time to it.

Sorry, children but, you have abused the privelege. American mothers will not sit by idly watching their children being sacrificed so some crazy can have the "right" to get assault weapons and kill.

Nothing is perfect, but to do nothing is not going to happen anymore.
edit on 16-12-2012 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)


Your right, there is NO purpose for assault weapons as related to hunting or personal protection. There is a purpose for assault weapons when it comes to protecting our freedom should it become necessary from an ever increasing tyrannical government. You can not fight assault weapons with 6 shooters and shotguns.

There is a very deliberate need to remove guns from the general public by our current government. That need is no different than the need the Nazi party had when they rounded up the guns from the German people. Since 9/11 we have been headed straight down the cliff in terms of personal liberties, freedoms and rights and it gets worse with every new piece of legislation that is passed, our government knows the people are not happy and they know they need to take the guns.

You would sell your freedom to purchase safety and for that I must condemn your beliefs because they are not the beliefs that founded this country and not the beliefs that will sustain the most cherished prize of all. Our freedom.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I do not believe our government is tryrannical. I love my country and will stay here and fight bad policies like these. I am just telling you guys and warning you. You are testing the resolve of american mothers. The only way our government can become tyrannical is when its citizens get lazy and uninvolved. Now, how far do you want to go with these weapons, a nuclear bomb in every household?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOMof3
I do not believe our government is tryrannical. I love my country and will stay here and fight bad policies like these. I am just telling you guys and warning you. You are testing the resolve of american mothers. The only way our government can become tyrannical is when its citizens get lazy and uninvolved. Now, how far do you want to go with these weapons, a nuclear bomb in every household?


Inevitably, someone takes it to the level of absurdity with the whole 'nuclear weapon' thing. No one is arguing for that and its nothing more than pointless hyperbole.

One thing I feel very strongly about is that people should be considered innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. There are around 100 million legal gun owners in this country and 99.99% are responsible, law abiding citizens, at least with regards to firearms ownership. We shouldn't be in the business of punishing that many people because a handful of idiots, thugs and mental cases commit heinous acts. What we should be doing is preventing those people from accessing weapons while at the same time preserving the rights of the overwhelming majority who are guilty of nothing and deserve no punishment. I think there are plenty of ways to do that, too, without resorting to the extreme.
edit on 16-12-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I find it ironic that, 911 gave Dub'ya just what he needed to declare war on a concept, thus allowing him to invade any country that purportedly housed "terrorists". Then your loving Patriot Act came along.

I read that Obama drafted some list of weapons that were deemed too powerful. Automatics and assault rifles etc. Once a list is drafted then additional firearms can be added.
Now after the second tragic public shooting in a very short time, an event that allowed Obama to say publicly that enough is enough something will be done. Sounds so rehearsed. It just seems there is always a tragic media circus event before some of your rights are whittled away. What a shameful loss of life. It's funny the only solution they can come up with is gun control.

I also read (I think on this board a while back) that Obama will succeed with his plan because he will draft and pass it under UN law and not congressional. The law would prevent firearms manufactures from dealing with American companies.

I am just an ignorant Canuck, but is it me or are pieces of a seemingly NWO puzzle falling into place?
edit on 16-12-2012 by sparrowstail because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sparrowstail
 


If its the same list I've seen, it looks like a fraud and a rip off of the old HR 1022 ban that was proposed back around 2005 and never went anywhere. The only validity it has is that many of the weapons from HR 1022 would probably be targeted again. They're all semi-automatics. Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and much more difficult to obtain. They also tend to be ridiculously expensive, costing many thousands of dollars.

As for the UN Small Arms treaty...can't say I'm overly concerned about it. Treaties require two-thirds ratification by the Senate. More than half the Senate has already signed a statement to the president stating that they will not vote to ratify any treaty that curtails civilian firearm ownership.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOMof3
reply to post by sprtpilot
 

I will show the same courage as I did then for this issue. Your assault weapons have been turned on children. It will stop.


Exactly what magic gun law do you propose that will be obeyed by criminals??

You might want to bone up on your gun knowledge by the way, there are many bolt action rifles that are far more powerful than so-called "assault" style weapons.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
listen up people!

ANYONE THAT WANTS TO DIVERT, AND TRY AND HIJACK THE CAUSE OF GUN CONTROL....SHOULD BE ARRESTED FOR AIDING AND ABETTING

BY SAYING "BAN GUNS"... INSTEAD OF...."GUN CONTROL/GUN RESTRICTIONS"...IS A MENACE TO THE CAUSE


no one wants to hear the term "ban guns"...which is how they put a spanner in the works....guns need restrictions, and need to be kept in the right hands

if a child could get "tooled up" this easily...then we obviously need better restrictions.....also you dont need automatic rifles to hunt, let alone in any city....


keep the cause pure...dont let the trolls highjack the good efforts made by our president....no one is saying ban guns...they are saying restrict them better

peace.
and god bless the young dead, who fell victim to the right wings short sightedness, arrogance and fear

love



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiraCity
Hahaha. Good luck with taking assault rifles... they do serve a purpose. We need to be equally capable of defending ourselves in the event of a tyrannical government.


how corrupt do you think government can get...they are people arnt they?

....im worried more about drunk morons who carry guns to the bar...are you one of them?




Even if you found yourself in a really bad intruder situation.

I will never rid of my guns.. period, end of story.


erm...the point is to get the guns out of the hands of "intruders"

id be comfortable with a blanket ban...

liable dudes, who are irratic, right wing. and with aggressive tendancies...dont need guns

BTW...your a grown man right?,,,you think you need to be armed, right?...what about a young girl...surely she has more of a case, than a dude who is liable to go off on one...

just saying
edit on 16-12-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sprtpilot
You might want to bone up on your gun knowledge by the way, there are many bolt action rifles that are far more powerful than so-called "assault" style weapons.


Yep. That's another reason why an assault weapons ban is a waste of time. The market will simply compensate for the lack of semi-automatic capability and higher capacity by stepping up to a much more powerful cartridge in a bolt or lever action. Either that, or it'll shift back into semi-auto HD shotguns, which probably won't be subject to a ban.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join