CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

I see people arguing over whether the bill will ban handguns or not, the fact is this bill is attempting to alter the 2nd amendment by trying to hinder the types of weapons we can own or not.That is an infringement of the 2nd amendment and this bill is detrimental to our constitutional right as american citizens.Stay aware and keep attention on this bill.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Even if it the bill won't ban handguns it is attempting to hinder our rights to own any type of weapon we desire to own and that is an infringement of the 2nd amendment and that is the important fact that I would like to highlight here.Stay aware and always be prepared my fellow americans and humans abroad.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

With everyone, screaming that this must have been a false flag, by the liberals, to push through their own agendas, I considered another possibility....

What are more than 100,000 metal detectors worth? What is a contract, fulfilling the requirements of training and arming over 200,000 to 300,000 new officers, to be placed in schools across this Nation, valued at? Maybe the Dems, were simply reacting as expected? Perhaps something this sinister came from someone or a group of someones, who had much more to gain from it, than some more legislation under their belt?

Does the Military Industrial Complex own any manufacturers of metal detectors? Or, how about a large private security company, or two? How will we get that "private army" everyone keeps talking about, onto US soil, enmass, under our radar?

What say you?

When things are not what they seem, history tells us to follow the money. Who would have the most to gain, by another American civil war? It seems that the M.I.C. would most benefit from a war on US soil. They could play both sides! They could supply whomever the wanted, and change their minds, mid-battle!

Is there any other potential pay-off that could be considered? Could this just be a ploy to get a big tax levied on all things "firearms"?
Most of the posts I've read, don't think this bill will gain any serious traction, but others are quick to point out that now is NOT the time for complacency!
I agree with both sentiments, so where do we go from here?

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


Banning anything is a fail. It will never succeed.

If you want to affect gun deaths, address the pathetic mental health treatment investment the people of the United States make annually.

I would love to talk about this more...but i am pretty busy at work tonight. Shouldn't even be here now, TBH. So we can chat later. Tater.

If they somehow do get this passed I wonder if they will ban violent video games too... Since violent video games teach people tactics that make them more efficient killers....

Just a thought.

Valhall your post about the Chemical components is VERY ON SPOT
and now feeds even more into what I was saying about them going after the AMMO if this bill does not pass the congress which I do NOT think it will. So with that rule DHS can with an executive order from the President can go and close down ALL Ammo production. They wont be able to go house to house but they can use that rule to go into any gun owners home they choose and seize those dangerous chemicals that are in the ammo
Excellent info and post Valhall

Originally posted by Timing
If they somehow do get this passed I wonder if they will ban violent video games too... Since violent video games teach people tactics that make them more efficient killers....

Just a thought.

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

Huh!

I always thought it taught them tactics that make them more efficient video-game players...lol
There is no re-spawn in real life. Although your thumbs will probably be less sore...

reply to post by themutant


Correction. They don't need an executive order. They already have the power.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Good.

Then you agree that people kill people?

You should also agree that people that go and act out violence they learned from TV, Music, and Video Games should be held responsible for their actions not the tools or weapons they used, right?

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

You haven't read a single thing on this topic have you? The SCOTUS ruled that the government did not GIVE us the right to keep and bear arms. The SCOTUS ruled that the right already existed prior to the construction of the constitution and the bill of rights. The Second Amendment was a commitment to PROTECT a pre-existing right. No document GIVES us the right. It is considered inherited and inherent.

The current government structure has to be reassembled to take it away. In other words, no law can take this pre-existing right away. Only a "redo" of the bill of rights.

And luckily, you being okay with "giving away my right" doesn't mean spit in this issue, not unless you've got the pull to completely abolish the current U.S. government and the restrictions it abides by. (By the way, attempting to do so is a treasonous act.) I'm okay with giving away your right to free speech, how do you feel about that? How about I just willy-nilly announce all the rights you have that I'm okay with taking away from you because I've personally decided you're incompetent to have them? That okay with you?

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

It seems you are totally missing the point! The scotus can decide anything it wants but I see that the second amendment has not been worth the paper it was written on for many decades. What the hell do you call the brady bill or the national firearms act of 1932 that banned almost everything? If the SCOTUS is so important then why does the federal government violate it like a rape victim?

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

The state that I live in regards driving as a privilege. We have to purchase a driver's license to use the privilege.

My state regards freedom of speech as a right. They don't make us buy a license for that. If they did try, I think it would be shot down by the courts. At least I hope it would.

Do you have a birth certificate? A social security number? Think about it.

Exactly we are part of the american corporation owned by the federal reserve bank mafia, and part of the world bank, imf....which all have their roots in switzerland....which have their roots in todays freemasonry and yesterdays knight templars of the unholy crusades against islam.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

Banning anything is a fail. It will never succeed.

If you want to affect gun deaths, address the pathetic mental health treatment investment the people of the United States make annually.

I would love to talk about this more...but i am pretty busy at work tonight. Shouldn't even be here now, TBH. So we can chat later. Tater.

It fails because the people at the top are above the law. How many presidents, prime ministers, vice presidents, senators have gone to jail and for what? How many top masonic bankers have gone to jail? None that I can think of. In fact white collar crime keeps going up, but its punishment keeps going down...in contrast to blue collar crime were both go up steadfastly.

There is nothing wrong with reasonable legislation provided everyone follows it to reasonable degrees. Naturally people at the top will have more leeway but they have been getting away with much more than that.

Originally posted by Timing
If they somehow do get this passed I wonder if they will ban violent video games too... Since violent video games teach people tactics that make them more efficient killers....

Just a thought.

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

As gruesome as video games are they are based totally on fantasy land.

Just to prove the point, how many people do you know that have to get shot 3 times to go down and die? In some video games you have to shoot that mother like 20 times or use some super duper chain gun and hold down the button like 5 seconds.

They are totally fake!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I really don't miss the point. But if it's okay with you, I'm not going willingly into the surrendered world you live in. You go ahead and give up and believe what you believe. I choose another path.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I really don't miss the point. But if it's okay with you, I'm not going willingly into the surrendered world you live in. You go ahead and give up and believe what you believe. I choose another path.

One man can't change the world. It takes a group effort, but too bad most are disinformed from the constant lies of the msm. If the NRA and gun owners were a bit more serious with what they preached they would have taken their message to washington dc, much like the tea party or occupy did. But they also failed because they never had the numbers game to their favor.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

does feinstein have or did have a concealed carry permit?

Originally posted by habaneroazul
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

does feinstein have or did have a concealed carry permit?

Yes she did, yes she carried.

But, please, let's not muddle this with facts and logic.

Stick to deceit and manipulation. It's easier to control people that way....watch my left hand!