It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

page: 12
70
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 


ANY infringement. That is the statement.
So, banning even one is an infringement.




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 


And what rights are guaranteed?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Whilst I agree with your definitions of armaments at the time of inception of the document, there is nowhere that clearly, specifically and lawfully states firearms within the constitution. I am just playing Devils Advocate and saying that this is an angle that could be taken to repeal any rights that currently exist pertaining to firearms!!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by spoogemonkey
 


I know, it's like watching someone take the dummy off the baby.........except it's a bloody country! That place must be a right messed up hole if people need guns so bad to feel as if they can lead a normal life?

America land of the Paranoid gun owners.



I know. You wouldn't get it, because your country handed all your rights over. Now you live on CCTV. You can't even walk down the street and scratch your behind without someone seeing it. We aren't quite there yet... hopefully we won't be. It doesn't bother me that you laugh at our country, it bothers me that you live as you do.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
reply to post by macman
 


You do realise that Britain has a Bill of Rights (That your own countries one was based on) that curtailed the power of the monarchy to a point where it has become a Constitutional (Ceremonial) Monarchy?


That is simply untrue.

Your Queen can recall the PM of Canada, Australia or the UK any time she wishes.

She may also dissolve the parliament of these countries and has.

All power to govern in Britain, Canada and Australia is derived from the throne. Look it up ...

All allegiances are sworn to the throne, the sovereign.

The Brits love to down play the fact that ALL governmental power is ultimately derived from the Queen.

You guys are a joke ...




edit: I think you guys know this and that is why you are so jealous of America. We kicked the monarch to the curb ages ago and never looked back. We have real rights and freedoms. You get whatever the monarch lets you have

edit on 10-1-2013 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


If you fail to respect the law and the duly elected democratic government then you are an insurgent, just like the ones in the Middle East.


in·sur·gent [in-sur-juh nt]
noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


This country SAVED YOUR F***ING ASSES WITH OUR LIVES.

How about some respect for the country that was once a shining example of freedom to the world. A country that came to the aid of Europe when a dictator threatened all. Our constitution and the freedoms it protects is what made this country great.



They seem to forget that piece of history, don't they? They were happy to have our guns over there then.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by Screwed
 


If you fail to respect the law and the duly elected democratic government then you are an insurgent, just like the ones in the Middle East.


in·sur·gent [in-sur-juh nt]
noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.


And if those officials violate their oath of office to protect and obey the constitution of the US they may be guilty of treason ...
edit on 10-1-2013 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2013 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
weird double post ....
edit on 10-1-2013 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


By that logic you should be allowed to carry any weapon that is transportable by one person?

That's a ridiculous statement. I can see it now, someone popping down the shop with an RPG slung over one shoulder and a flamethrower over the other.

Regulations are not infringements...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Definition of a dictator:

noun
1. A person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

2. A person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.

3. A person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.

4. A person who dictates, as to a secretary.

5. A person who makes pronouncements, as on conduct, fashion, etc, which are regarded as authoritative

6. A person who behaves in an authoritarian or tyrannical manner
edit on 10-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by Screwed
 


If you fail to respect the law and the duly elected democratic government then you are an insurgent, just like the ones in the Middle East.


in·sur·gent [in-sur-juh nt]
noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.


Luckily, our founding documents guarantee the right of the people to be "insurgents".


You'd do well to actually READ these founding documents instead of parroting some stupid liberal talking point!





When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.





We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--


Sounds VERY clear and concise to me. I can't see how anyone can "lawyer" their way around that!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
reply to post by macman
 


By that logic you should be allowed to carry any weapon that is transportable by one person?

That's a ridiculous statement. I can see it now, someone popping down the shop with an RPG slung over one shoulder and a flamethrower over the other.

Regulations are not infringements...


I think perhaps you should brush up on your vernacular! a "Regulation" is a direct interference in freedom as by its very definition it seeks to lay stipulations upon and individual while engaging in an activity, be it commerce or otherwise. It inserts itself between and individual's free will and the act with which they wish to engage. That makes "Regulation" a synonym with "Infringement"!




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Obama doesn't have to ban guns to do what he wants. He doesn't even have to regulate them.
He doesn't have to conflict with the second amendment at all...

All he has to do is ban ammunition...then ban reloading equipment and sales of gun powder
and primers to citizens...easy-peasy.

Ban the bullet and you effectively ban the gun...without running afoul of the BoR--the second
amendment is clear, "...the right to keep and bear arms...". It says nothing about bullets

Guns don't kill...guns don't protect...bullets do



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Obama doesn't have to ban guns to do what he wants. He doesn't even have to regulate them.
He doesn't have to conflict with the second amendment at all...

All he has to do is ban ammunition...then ban reloading equipment and sales of gun powder
and primers to citizens...easy-peasy.

Ban the bullet and you effectively ban the gun...without running afoul of the BoR--the second
amendment is clear, "...the right to keep and bear arms...". It says nothing about bullets

Guns don't kill...guns don't protect...bullets do


Bullets are part and parcel with arms ....

go fish ...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 

Yes, it states "Arms"
Yes, regulation, by definition is an infringement.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
reply to post by BoulderSue
 


Ask any Native American why a person needs as good a rifle as the U.S. Military, Sue......you'll get your answer.


In brief:

Wounded Knee

Once the soldiers disarmed the natives, they were massacred.

Never forget.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions
 


SO, no evidence on crime stats that you touted?
Sure sure then, sure sure.


You just look like an idiot at this point.

This took me less than one minute to find.



Crime Stats


Here ya go for the "common sense" impaired:

Age
edit on 10-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman

I know. You wouldn't get it, because your country handed all your rights over. Now you live on CCTV. You can't even walk down the street and scratch your behind without someone seeing it. We aren't quite there yet... hopefully we won't be. It doesn't bother me that you laugh at our country, it bothers me that you live as you do.



Well actually you are. You've even surpassed the UK as the most surveilled society in history, apparently.

There was a thread on it somewhere I think.

www.washingtonsblog.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Yes, like an idiot.
As your proof does not break down to age categories.

Care to try again???



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join