WH Plans To Overwhelm NRA With Rapid Victory

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


sorry, yes, by "nasty guns" I was referring to assault rifles.




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by lolita64



All statist regime ends the same way : with lots of unarmed people 6 feet under and the rest as slaves. Whoever votes for this should be arrested pronto and tried for their crime which is treason.
edit on 5-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)

Using the Nazi treatment of Jews as a defense of bearing arms is just plain nasty.

Shame on you and shame on all who entertain this thread any further.

PS In case some of you can't think : the UK forces fought against the Nazis and the UK population (even back then) were not armed.
edit on 6/1/2013 by yorkshirelad because: PS



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



It's not ok with this Illinois resident. I'm not native to this state and when we moved here about 15 years ago for work, the gun laws gave me a nasty shock. I'm from Kentucky and we could carry in our vehicles as long as it was in plain sight. [Laws have changed since I moved] Here? Unloaded, in a zippered case, where it is not accessible. What good is that? There is, hopefully, some new laws coming out this spring. But, in the rush to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights, I don't hold any real hope in it being a reasonable compromise. We've been planning on moving, but I get the feeling it'll be sooner than expected.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings

www.washingtonpost.com... 0a789346f_print.html


The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.


If you think that the intended outcome of this is anything less striking the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, you haven't been paying attention. It's not just the NRA WH is trying to overwhelm it is every gun owner in the U.S.

BHO wants it done by the end of the month. Sound likes an Executive Order is in the making. Once they have the gun owners registered and fingerprinted, don't be surprised to see total gun recall after the next shooting massacre.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The President doesn't get to write law.
There are no where near enough Democrats even to go along with this.
The House Will Never.
Done.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sprtpilot
The President doesn't get to write law.
There are no where near enough Democrats even to go along with this.
The House Will Never.
Done.


Chicago style, whatever it takes. If you haven 't noticed. Wait and see.
End of the month = Executive Order. Do you think Executive Orders don't exceed their authority? National Defence Authorization Act indefinite detention for starters.

I do not envision the formal striking of the 2nd Amendment to happen -not by the legislative branch anyhow.

I hope and pray my opinion is wrong.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
If anyone is interested here is a thread discussing which of the first 10 amendments are still intact.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Using the Nazi treatment of Jews as a defense of bearing arms is just plain nasty.


Why? Because it's indisputable? Or maybe it's like a kick to the groin. It's not a move a "gentleman" would make but it's effective nonetheless.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how it is that the Nazis murdered 6 million unarmed civilians and this (somehow) isn't a big black mark on the record of governments who like their citizens to be unarmed?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Reply to post by beezzer
 


Much as I would like to believe your idea about Obama saving the day with a single payer system, I just cannot embrace the reality of it. The insurance companies were given a gift and I just do not see the US going the way of true modern society and having a single payer system. There is simply too much money to be privately made. The ACA is nothing more than a mandate for the insurance company benefit. Nothing more.

Perhaps you're right about the gun angle, but I would truly be shocked if this country went single payer within the next 40 years. I just don't see it happening. The overlords won't let it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain

Much as I would like to believe your idea about Obama saving the day with a single payer system, I just cannot embrace the reality of it. The insurance companies were given a gift and I just do not see the US going the way of true modern society and having a single payer system. There is simply too much money to be privately made.


Well, you have to realize that it's still socialism even if they're using a middleman. It still works out as redistribution of wealth. As I understand it, the "wealthy" (above a certain income level) will be forced to pay into a pool that will be used to pay for the medical care of people who are exempted because their income isn't high enough. It is still a soft form of socialism. Which I don't believe to be a good thing at all.

The socialists will phase out the insurance companies. For now, the insurance companies will just be allowed to believe they have a nice little racket going with captive customers and all. I believe the people behind Obamacare are really hardcore socialists and their goal is more long term than the next few years.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well, Obama and Feinstien would be terribly, tragically mistaken to believe the NRA represents anything to what the true opposition and disagreement is in the United States about their concept of gun regulation. If they want near totalitarian regulation in California and Illinois and the people of those states are willing to tolerate if not embrace it? More power to them. That's their right to accept or stand and fight by whatever legal avenues exist as they choose.

The sales figures released this week alone show the numbers go FAR beyond the N.R.A, and personally? I shredded my NRA card 3 years ago. I'll never recommend them to anyone, support them in any way or give them the least bit of courtesy. They did far too much in trying to interfere with both the Heller and Chicago cases that set precedent. If they couldn't claim credit, it seemed, they were going to work to sandbag it. Well.. they failed and OH WHAT A FAIL THEY ARE.


Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation are those we have to truly thank for Chicago and Heller. I hope credit and support is given where it's due ...and withdrawn from where it has no place any longer. They became political toads at the NRA who are MORE interested in power, prestige and above ALL ELSE...ALWAYS...fundraising..then actually doing meaningful things to improve the state of affairs in this nation, IMO.


Not more power to them... It is illegal. Any infringement of the right to keep and bare arms is illegal.

Any limitations on the type of firearm, capacity of magazines etc.. is an infringement. It is not limited to firearms either, ANY arms. that means explosives, grenades, mortars etc.. Any infringement.

This is so the people have a means to resist and overcome tyranny in govt. and for nothing else. It is not so we can hunt rabbit at the consent of the government. It is to resist and overcome tyranny.

I love the people who state that AR-15's aren't going to be able to overcome the army...DUH, first we're not limited to AR-15's and secondly, that's the whole point, there can be NO infringement period. Any type of infringement is constitutionally illegal.

Jaden



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


PS In case some of you can't think : the UK forces fought against the Nazis and the UK population (even back then) were not armed
really ?
since you didn't include any links to back that up, you might want to review this one



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 


The President doesn't get to write law
then please explain why we are subjected to his personally penned Executive Orders ??



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

These Executive Orders (EOs) by the Executive Branch are Unconstitutional. The Legislative Branch makes the Law; the Judicial Branch interprets the Law; and the Executive Branch executes the Law. The POTUS can provide leadership and can sometimes have latitude in the enforcement of them but that is it. Executive Orders were originally for ordering the White House china and silverware. Congress needs to challenge these before it is too late.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 

NDAA is an "act of Congress" (legislative branch)...but the EOs (ie, 10999) are not.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
Finally a step in the right direction for the American people, proud of you.

You will still have your right to bear arms, but the nasty guns will be banned.

Great news.


Just like the UK, eh? How's that working out for you?

And don't bullish*t me, because we know the truth. It is working out badly.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


You view single payer as "true modern society"? How interesting. It looks to me like the remains of old Marxian philosophy of the 1800's. How modern of you.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Very rare you see gun crime here matey, yes violent crime is quite high, but at least the fatality rate is low. (and for the record, firearms aren't banned in the UK, just harder to get licensed for, I could easily get a license if I wanted one)

Besides, all I am saying is that banning AR is a good step, not they are taking away your rights to use firearms, they aren't, just the nastier types of weapons that can kill a lot of innocent people really quickly.

I have come to understand you lot like your guns, so I say banning all of them is probably a bad thing for you guys.

You just don't need assault rifles to go hunting or home defense.
edit on 6/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
Finally a step in the right direction for the American people, proud of you.

You will still have your right to bear arms, but the nasty guns will be banned.

Great news.


Funny that considering gun crime surged in the UK by 89% from 1999-2009 (Google it if you don't believe me). I don't expect a subject of the british government to understand the American constitution and our bill of rights. But it goes a little something like this (for us Americans): The second amendment is our ultimate trump card against our government. It ensures that we the people hold the true power, not the government. So any proposed "weapons ban" concerning guns is beyond the federal governments power, since "We the People" have never granted them that power.

Therefore, the right to bear arms is non-negotiable. The bright side is that this will not pass (thank god) due to a republican controlled congress. The democrats will likely try to vilify the republicans for it, but it will amount to nothing more than "talk" and political grandstanding by both parties. If history is anything to go by, the republicans will win and win big. The democrats who supported the first assault weapons ban back in the early 1990's were voted out, and the republicans swept both houses of congress and virtually controlled government throughout much of the duration of the 1990's.

Furthermore, the first assault weapons ban didn't work. A second version of the bill will not work. Simply banning things doesn't stop people from getting their hands on them. What happens is a thriving black market ruled by criminal enterprises rises up and creates more crime and issues for law abiding citizens. It essentially does the opposite of what it is "designed" to do. And if we actually look at gun homicides statistics (9,000 last year) we see that guns aren't really the problem people like you would like them to be. That is incredibly low for a population of 315 million people with an equal number of guns in circulation. Also, gun crime (and crime in general) has continued its annualized decent downward. Today, crime is lower than it was in the past 30 years...
edit on 6-1-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


i truly appreciate the humor
but, in concept, they are absolutely Constitutional ... in practical use, they've become the blade of the sword we recognize as a pen.

you do realize these perpetual EOs began with GWashington, around 1789, right ?
(they are nothing new)

the scope of these orders did change vastly following the War Powers Act of 1917 (all of which were supposed to be temporary
), however, FDR pretty much took it to the extreme with some 3500+ issued under the guise of a 'national emergency'


do you know what the very first EO stipulated ?
here's a clue ... 'duty'

the second one issued was to establish a national day of Thanksgiving.
which doesn't even resemble their uses today.

you may also find these links of interest ...
link 1
link 2





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join