WH Plans To Overwhelm NRA With Rapid Victory

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xterrain


STFU you British piece of trash. Speak for yourself and ONLY for yourself.


This is a global internet site which promotes discussions from all over the world.

I am entitled to my opinions whether they are valid in your country or not, and I was being nice to boot.

Calling people names and acting like a child on the other hand does not promote healthy discussion.

Go over the site T&C again, I think you may need to.

EDIT:

Here you go, for your perusal.

Terms And Conditions Of Use

One of the bits that applies in this case:


16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
edit on 6/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


yeah that was kind of the point i was trying to get at but you phrased it better then i could,I was more trying to focus on the fact that dems that had supported the previous ban attempts were almost unilateral removed from office come next election cycle. so it kind of makes it dangerous for other dens to come out or lend support for this bill especially if it looks like it might not pass as if they try this and fail it will be remembered come election time.as if the democrats loose majority in the senate and republicans can hold on to the house it would go a long way to making the latter half of Obama's 2nd term alot less fun for him as the house alone is throwing plenty of monkey wrenches into the works allready



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Listen very carefully to what this treasonous criminal said -




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


The first EOs (have not gone to your link yet) were for things like "ordering" the White House china
NO, they weren't and that's a pretty poor representation to share with others



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by rock427
 


Any rifle that has changeable magazine (or belt fed in some cases) and can fire semi or fully auto in constant or burst, any idiot could probably Google that info anyway


That is the basic definition of an assault weapon. A weapon that can fire automatically. Those are already banned in the United States. Only people with a Class III License can own and operate an automatic weapon. It is true that semi-autos "can" be fitted to fire auto. However, that is already illegal without the proper license. so assault rifles are already banned to 99% of the public here.

Semi-Autos however are not assault rifles, as they do not fire burst rounds or automatically. Now that we can differentiate between between assault grade rifles and non-assault grade rifles, there is no need to ban any guns at all. Unless you're srsly entertaining the idea of banning semi-autos. (Semi-autos equate to 99.9% of all guns out there.)
edit on 6-1-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 


I didn't know that, thanks for shedding light on it.

So what are they planning to ban then? (other than high cap mags)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by rock427
 


I didn't know that, thanks for shedding light on it.

So what are they planning to ban then? (other than high cap mags)


I can respect that!

80 year old Senator Fienstien has proposed a bill based upon her flawed rudimentary understanding of guns; which would seek to ban all hand guns, any weapon with a "military feature", and fixed magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Additionally, she wants stricter back ground checks, (because criminals obviously won't buy their weapons on the black-market or anything.) along with "grand-fathered" guns to be registered...

The bill hasn't a snow balls chance in hell of passing. But it kinda goes to show the mentality that many of us Americans are having to deal with when it comes to the gun control debate. Banning guns in this country is not feasible at all. And besides that, it is beyond the federal governments constitutionally limited authority to ban guns in this country. That is why many Americans are against stricter gun control policies like Senator Fiensteins bill. They seek to criminalize the entire population by passing laws that do not differentiate law abiding citizens from those who commit heinous criminal acts.


edit on 6-1-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
And, of course, you cannot have TOTAL CONTROL until you disarm the rank and file American Citizen.
Disarmament of the citizenry amounts to nothing less than turning Americans from citizens into peasant/slaves.
Much easier to enforce your tyranny when the peasants cannot effectively rise up and stamp it out.

High capacity, semi-automatic weapons are, indeed, America's teeth, and, claws.

Any ban on them WILL eventually result in a shooting war within the American Homeland.
We, most certainly, do not want to go there.
Therefore, an all out ban has no prayer of passing, either by the congressional cockroaches, or, our aspiring emperor, by way of EO.

So, the anti's will continue to chip away at The Second Amendment where they can. An offer of "compromise" will be banning high cap mags. That will likely be accepted by the treasonous congressional cockroaches.

Americans will clean house in the mid-terms if that happens, mid-90's style.

An answer only in their minds.

In reality, it will do nothing to stem the rising tide of tyranny within the fed.gov.
Too many full time, far left, fascist bureaucrats have too much power, as it stands, now. To them, elected officials are merely pesky flies that you swipe away from your face, and then, proceed with moving the agenda forward. They'll be gone, or, dealt with, or, converted, soon enough. Keep working...

Fed.gov is in serious need of a bureaucratic enema to clean out all those far leftists sitting in their comfy fed.gov careers, working to turn the U.S. into a total police state.

JMHO.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

I apologize...upon reflection my characterization (which I read elsewhere) was misleading in part because the first presidential orders were called "Proclamations" as I understand it (the term "Executive Order" was not used until President Lincoln)....but "Orders" from the White House for china and such were confused with the term as it is used today. Admittedly, my problem is the potential abuse from the series of EOs that relate to COG and ML as they can create Law without going thru the Legislative Branch.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

apology accepted and you'd better study up then cause not only is the characterization wrong, so is the 'proclamation' statement.

they are 2 separate things.
one (EO) has the power/weight of law, the other (proclamation) does not
{it is a strong suggestion/recommendation, nothing more}.
and, it has always been that way.

ALL EOs can create law around the preferences of the legislative branch, however, it wasn't intended that way.

EOs were supposed to be utilized to 'transfer authority' to a specific branch/agency of the .gov system, that's all.

unfortunately, those 'affiliate' .gov entities have transferred their 'authority' to more private operations, hence, DOD, the State Dept, EPA, NSA, FBI, CIA, the Fed Reserve and many others.

ever wonder why DC is an entity all to itself, separate from all the other American states ?
edit on 6-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by rock427
 


I have been in the military, I have fired assault rifles (SA-80, inc. the light support variant, L86A1 and others).

I am fully aware of what assault rifles are.


Anything used to assault someone with is an assault weapon. I have lots of knives, assault knives, because they can be used to assault someone with.

I have a number of baseball bats too. Assault baseball bats, because they can be used to assault someone with.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Hey what can we say about this, why not go the Mexican route (if you thought banning knives was bad wait to you see this bad boy). And just ban toy guns while your at, because we all know that small parts are dangerous for children, with the dumbing down of everyone the adults might choke as well....... I can see it now the reality of The Christmas Story happening, "You'll shoot your eye out!" or Nerf sent kid to the hospital with an eye infection. (I still can't believe what I read wow....)


www.breitbart.com...

abcnews.go.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
The Sandy Hook outrage is already fading.I think you will have something new closer to the end of the month.It will be singular not multiple and yet be cause for a greater devision.If they play this card, it will be game on.


Is this a hint towards the head injury mentioned in Revelation 13:3?
New King James Version (NKJV)
3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by lolita64
 


A new White House petition asking President Obama to keep his promise of not taking guns and his oath of office. If unable, to please step down.

wh.gov...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytoosenze
reply to post by lolita64
 


A new White House petition asking President Obama to keep his promise of not taking guns and his oath of office. If unable, to please step down.

wh.gov...


All he "promised" not to take were shotguns, rifles and handguns. He didn't say a word about ammo.
Signed it anyway.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
They can pass all the legislation they want.

The guns are already out there.

They are not going to go door to door confiscating guns, it's just completely impractical and unrealistic.
Not to mention it would put many officers unnecessarily at risk of harm.

For any type of confiscation to work, it would take a SWAT team going into every home. They would be at it from sun up to sun down, every day for YEARS.

The country is entirely too broke to pay the police the over-time. You think the cops are going to participate in that kind of nonsense for free?

Not going to happen.


They did it in New Orleans, in the middle of a disaster. Door to door, taking guns. They could do it again, after a lot of people willingly handed theirs over, in some "buy back" plan, or because of pressure from having their name and address public, etc. Some place, it would be hard; others, it would be pretty easy. Most likely, it will be done in stages. A few types here, a few cities, smaller states.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


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


Alright.....but do you not remember when the store owners in LA defended their businesses against rioters using assault rifles? They do have legitimate uses.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I'm not talking about banning guns in the USA, I don't think they should ban guns in the USA, what I am referring to is fully automatic weapons that serve no purpose other than killing lots of people really quickly.


So....if a large mob was headed for my door, while rioting in the street, what sort of weapon do you think I should have to defend my home? Hmm? Pea shooter, maybe?

Besides, you are still missing the entire POINT of the 2'nd Amendment. Think back to when your government lost control on this continent, and maybe it will come to you.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by rock427
 


I didn't know that, thanks for shedding light on it.

So what are they planning to ban then? (other than high cap mags)


Virtually everything except a revolver or shotgun. That's the whole POINT.

They want all guns to be considered "assault" weapons. Check out old videos, if you can locate them. The White House "shooting"? Some time back? The "assault rifle" they took from the trunk of the alleged shooter's car was a pump action shotgun. One of the cops even cleared it, showing that beyond any doubt. They want people unarmed, like every other dictator in modern history.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BaneOfQuo
Can I still tape two smaller capacity magazines together?

Typical of the government to ram things through congress. Most of them don't bother going through new bills even though there are hidden ones within the hundreds of pages of political jargon
edit on 5-1-2013 by BaneOfQuo because: (no reason given)


any guns that accept magazines are banned. oh, and the magazines are banned also, so you could tape them together, but even one would be illegal.

i believe this will pass, but many won't follow it.





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join