CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

page: 20
81
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by IBelieveInAliens
 


To even start to disarm the USA they would have to take a stab at just how many weapons there are in the country then guess about the logistics of accomplishing it. The moment some one picks up a pen to start to write laws to disarm the USA the moment they are throwing away tax payer money at a rate only war could match.




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiNWO
Here's my statement to the Federal Government:

I give up. You can have my gun.
But first, please let me know when you've disarmed all of the criminals in the country so that I know that gun control really works.
Also, let me know when you have refused armed protection for yourselves so that I know that you're sincere.
And tell me when all of the machinery in the world that could produce guns is distroyed so that I know there will be no new guns produced on the black market and sold to criminals.
And let me know when you've eliminated all the materials that can be used to make machinery that could produce guns which will be sold on the black market to criminals.
Then let me know when you've disarmed the police, since they will no longer have to fear being shot.
And don't forget all of the federal and state government agencies, since they will then be able to do their jobs without weapons.
Please guarantee me that no guns of any kind will enter the country from outside, and also guarantee that if any do, I will be issued a free "assault rifle" and "high-capacity" magazines by the government for my personal protection.
Finally, let me know when you've disarmed the military so that I can rest assured that our country will not fall to tyranny as the forefathers warned.

Then you can have my gun.
Nope, they can have your gun when they want to take it. If the government creates a law where you can be sent to prison for owning a gun, you'll give it up without a fight, just like the other 9.999 percent of Americans.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by IBelieveInAliens
 


To even start to disarm the USA they would have to take a stab at just how many weapons there are in the country then guess about the logistics of accomplishing it. The moment some one picks up a pen to start to write laws to disarm the USA the moment they are throwing away tax payer money at a rate only war could match.
So if the US government passed a law that said it was illegal to own a firearm, with a mandatory penalty of say...no less than 5 years in prison, you think many people would hold on to their guns? I don't.
edit on 29-12-2012 by IBelieveInAliens because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
as best I can tell what they are really go for is another assault weapons bill passed late on friday night January 18th in CA at least so that on Jan 21 Obama can use it as proof of action during his inauguration and whatever legal fallout after that wont be important to him.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by IBelieveInAliens
 
You would be surprised. MILLIONS of Americans would disobey an unconstitutional gun grab, that includes members of the military and police. People aren't buying up every firearm under the sun over here just to give it right back to uncle sam. Those of you who get a hard on thinking about a disarmed America are in for a rude awakening.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by IBelieveInAliens

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by IBelieveInAliens
 


To even start to disarm the USA they would have to take a stab at just how many weapons there are in the country then guess about the logistics of accomplishing it. The moment some one picks up a pen to start to write laws to disarm the USA the moment they are throwing away tax payer money at a rate only war could match.
So if the US government passed a law that said it was illegal to own a firearm, with a mandatory penalty of say...no less than 5 years in prison, you think many people would hold on to their guns? I don't.
edit on 29-12-2012 by IBelieveInAliens because: (no reason given)


All the people have to say is "come and pick them up from my house" and bam billions if not trillions spent just collecting the weapons and that's the people giving them up peacefully.

And you know what I say send in all the gun fearongers to collect them haha I guarantee not a single person has the balls to knock on someones door and demand their weapons regardless of what laws are passed. If you think it's possible I more than welcome you to try. You may start with Texas because I don't see a ban even coming close to their door step # a ban isn't even in their neighborhood.
edit on 29-12-2012 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)


Well Texas will never give up their guns as long as Mexico is a border country. Come
On one of the few states that could actually make it as a country isn't that stupid.
edit on 29-12-2012 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-12-2012 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I'm sure there is quite a few country folk that would get all shined up and make a mess out of some local police stations before it went to far.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Why would a rational, sane person need an "assault" weapon with more than ten rounds in the clip? Hmmmm...

I could dig up countless more accounts and photos, but this says it all. In these days of tension~ racial, economic, social, political...A situation could explode in moments, without warning. Remember that Rodney King guy?

Sucks to be a gun hating liberal that day.


Korean men defending their store from rioting mobs during the 1992 LA riots

Wasn't there a whole lot of chatter about country-wide rioting if Obama wasn't re-elected? This can happen anywhere over anything, don't be so stupid as to think that we're 'beyond' rioting now.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Like it or not, America was founded on the idea of a higher power. Not so much religion, but of a higher being. If you don't like that historical fact, too bad.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


You seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the concept of "God". While I am no Christian, I AM (like a majority of our founders, born of the Age of Reason) a Deist.

Call it "God", or "Creative Force"...whatever you want to call it. When someone says "God given right", what is meant is, "Rights that are the logical result of Natural Law".

As it regards guns: By virtue of you being "life", you have a right to life. You may argue that you have no right to live, and if you do then we have fundamental disagreements that will not be resolved. BUT....

....if you have a right to life, then it logically follows that you also have a right to protect that life. Correct?

If the potential is there for your "enemy" to have a weapon, it would be an obvious conclusion that, since you have a right to protect the life that you have a right to have, then you would also have a right to the weaponry needed to protect that life, correct?

This is the gist of "God given".

I hope that this will allay the need you seem to have to make the word "God" the battle front of this disussion. Because, in the end, it is just a matter of semantics, and your personal preference in deity (or lack thereof).



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ftman

Originally posted by charlyv

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by charlyv
 


If you can define an "assault class weapon", then you're doing better than some of the top military and law enforcement officials in the U.S. There is no such official term, unless you're here to officiate it.

And your oath includes a commitment...no...an OBLIGATION....to only obey lawful orders and to disobey unlawful orders. So if you have interpreted your oath to blindly do whatever some nut-job anti-American asswipe in the White House tells you, you are in breach of your military obligations.

And I'm okay with pointing that out to you, by the way.
edit on 12-28-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


You blind Anti-American... you deserve what you get, and you are typical of a breed of Americans that are really not Americans, but traitors to it's values, teachings and spirit. You hide in the tunnels of it's "very hard to understand values" because your intelligence level is not capable of understanding them, however, those that made this country what it is, certainly did, and you have benefited from their sacrifices, yet you still do not get it.

An "Assault Class Weapon" is one that is Automatic or Semi-Automatic that can fire more than the traditional (today) number of rounds than legacy weapons such as a six or seven round capacity without reloading.

Read about it, it is widely stated and also part of the the proposed legislature, but they even take it up to 10 rounds, which is not in the classic definition.

The definition is based upon legacy semi-automatic weapons available as hand guns back around 1949 .

Who cares if you are ok with pointing this out to me or not, you need to get a hold of reality and a hold of what is defined as a weapon that meets the accepted definition today. The laws that were written back when we had the first and second amendment were based upon weapons that required a few minutes to reload and prime, if you recall history. There is no precedence for the class of weapons we have today, so it requires BRAINS and COMMON SENSE to level the playing field and put the spirit of the Constitution back into reality. That is what being an American is all about... Intelligence.

There is no way our forefathers could have known about what we have today, and the law was written in the context of what a person would be capable of performing, in terms of destruction and weapons available at the time, given an accepted reload time. This is where common sense comes in to play, since when these laws were created, there was barely anything that could repeat-fire in under a minute. Use your f###ing head and see if you can figure this out.

And, calling the President an Asswipe? (well we just have to put that in perspective of your persona as well)



You're the type of American that I actually respect.

Coming in here and seeing people with machine guns in their avatars defending the 2nd amendment makes me sick to my stomach.

You DON'T need an automatic/semi-automatic weapon for protection. A shotgun with limited rounds (similar to what Australia allows) is enough to protect yourselves. Anything else just provides the mentally ill the resources to go on yet again, another mass shooting spree.
edit on 29-12-2012 by ftman because: (no reason given)


Some blinded Americans will never understand this concept though, that's the problem & it always will be.

It seems that all these gun-toting Americans are to stupid to to realise that;

"the guns you own end up owning you"



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 


I hear you on that, but we'll just have to man-up and get it done, whatever needs to be done, will be done!



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by IBelieveInAliens
 


But you're wrong. It has already been ruled on in the DC v Heller case by the Supreme Court. And that SCOTUS ruling clearly stated that 1. Congress damned sure doesn't have the right to pass any law that makes the US Citizen a criminal simply by exercising their Second Amendment right, and 2) the only level of government that could ATTEMPT to do that is the State-level and then the decision went on to state....and even if the State attempted that it would be time for the people to perform basically the "fourth branch" check on the government. The court ruling implicitly declared the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as the final check against the other three branches of government.

The SCOTUS ruling in Heller also went on to clearly state that any weapon that is considered "in common use and applicable as an expected weapon to be used in a militia" is protected for the US citizen to keep and bear under the Second Amendment protection. So Feintstein's attempt to ban millions of the most commonly used type of firearms chosen by the American public (semi-automatic weapons) has already been ruled to be unconstitutional and quite frankly - if you think I was kidding before - I believe criminal charges should be filed against the woman because the SCOTUS has already stated Congress shall not pass a law that...attempts to do what she's about to attempt to do. She is flagrantly violating a SCOTUS ruling!

Lastly, both the Circuit court AND the SCOTUS upheld that the Constitution does not GRANT us the right as individuals to keep and bear arms, but it PROTECTS that pre-existing right. So the founding fathers came to the table KNOWING that all citizens already had the right to keep and bear arms and the Second Amendment was written to PROTECT and SAFEGUARD that pre-existing right.

So, no...the government can't just decide anything. Done already been ruled they can't.
edit on 12-29-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by IBelieveInAliens
 


And then one last thing I want to point out about the SCOTUS decision concerning Heller et al. Almost to a case, a plaintiff cannot have standing to be heard before the SCOTUS until AFTER they are injured. That's why the entire Obamacare Act has not yet been ruled on by the SCOTUS, just parts of it. The companies and people (who will be repesented by the individual states) do not have standing yet to challenge the overall constitutionality of the Obamacare act because they have not yet been financially injured. AFter next year - Katy bar the door.

HOWEVER, in the Heller case, his attorney successfully argued that if the plaintiff waited until he was "injured" by the DC handgun prohibitions, he would be a criminal by that time because Heller intended on keeping his handgun in his home to protect himself. The courts ruled that NO US CITIZEN MUST BECOME A CRIMINAL IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE STANDING for the purpose of ruling on the constitutionality of the law that would render them criminals! So Heller was recognized to have a pre-existing standing to avoid becoming a criminal.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
If the Feds were able to collect a tax on 25% of the firearms in the US, at $200 a pop.... that would amount to $4 trillion.
They want more of our money too.
Good luck with that, Feds.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


And I don't believe that will be ruled constitutional either. Here's the deal. The SCOTUS clearly ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an inherited (not inherent but inherited) right and they took the step of the Second Amendment to protect it. The SCOTUS was also clear that the Congress was not the level at which anything that precluded our ability to keep and bear arms could take place. Anything that put additional requirements on our right to keep and bear would have to come from the state or lower (local, etc.) So "permitting" and "licensing" are acceptable constitutional acts at the state and local levels, but I do not believe, based on the language of the SCOTUS decision in Heller that Congress can pass such an onerous requirement on a PRE-EXISTING right.

Further to that, I don't believe that the requirement to pay $200 PER WEAPON will hold up before the court either (even if it is at the local level). Because it disenfranchises the lower income population of America. It will be viewed as a discriminatory obstacle to lesser income population being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms for personal protection. Now, can the states make us register as gun owners? Yeah. Can they make us pay a reasonable fee for doing so? Yeah. But the $200/gun NATIONAL requirement I do not believe will be held up as constitutional for a couple of reasons before stated.
edit on 12-29-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


Maybe I don't have any douchebag friends who report me or something, but I post statuses about all kinds of things people claim is banned from facebook, including bashing this blatant attempt at usurping the second.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


And they can't put the $200/weapon charge ONLY on certain guns (i.e. semi-automatics) because the SCOTUS has stated that nothing can be done in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. If the gun is considered "in common use" and something that would be expected to be brought to bear for the purpose of a militia, then the gun is legal and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear it exists. So you can't pick SOME legal guns and put some type of additional burden on possessing them and then leave out others.

edit on 12-29-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Not just handguns but also assault style weapons that a) put one into a warrior mind set not a hunter psche and b) can hold more rounds for a fire fight and handguns because they are very concealable The agenda is multi-fold; 1) stop current production and importation, 2) registration. Registration seems innocuous enough (like cars) but is always a precursor to confiscation. Wait til there is an attempt on the life of a politician like Feinstein with a high powered bolt action rifle with a scope and then those hunting rifles will be demonized as military sniper rifles and they will be targeted as well. In Feinstein's Bill the registration process includes supplying your Driver's License # and picture....which heretodate was only relevant if you were Concealed Carry. How convenient when the roadblocks go up that they will know that you own firearms (not necessarily on your person) when you go thru the checkpoint....coincidence?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I agree with you completely.

What troubles me is the decision that the SCOTUS came to regarding 'Obamacare'. You never know what might happen.





new topics
top topics
 
81
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join