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: 13
70
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions
 


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

Care to try again???


Are you aware that the majority of criminals are under the age of 25?

Yes, idiot.

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




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 




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

Check into it, the flamethrower is NOT federally regulated.

If a person actually wanted to, they could 'pop down the shop' (whatever that means, I am not sure) with a flamethrower.

At any rate, to ban molotov cocktails, they would have to ban gasoline, glass containers and/or rags.

Bans are stupid.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Really???
Care to show me where your stats show that.

Oh, forgot. Idiot stats provided by............................



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions
 


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

Care to try again???


Are you aware that the majority of criminals are under the age of 25?

Yes, idiot.
edit on 10-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

Are you aware that the shooters(underage) at Columbine had their weapons supplied to them by a girlfriend that was old enough (and sane)? She purchased the weapons legally, then broke existing law by transferring the guns to an underage person.
Did she go to jail? NO.
Did she stand trial? NO.
Was she even charged with the crime?

What good are new laws when they don't enforce the existing laws???



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


haha, you outed yourself as a man with little to no common sense!



Look at my above link. There is CLEARLY a huge drop off in crime after age 25.

Reasons:

The prefrontal cortex becomes fully mylenated.
Experience
People start to develop careers and families
Testosterone starts to decline




You ever been locked up? If not, go tour a detention facility. The inmates are 90% under the age of 25.

If you are too weak to look this junk up yourself, I can hold your hand and show you all the "stats" your weak mind needs due to a lack of common sense.
edit on 10-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Ah, the little statement of

Originally posted by unityemissions


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


Says it all.

I do love the fact that what you provided first, wasn't doing the job. So you went in and changed the post to offer something else.

You, are a liar and a cheat. Nothing more.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Ah, the little statement of

Originally posted by unityemissions


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


Says it all.

I do love the fact that what you provided first, wasn't doing the job. So you went in and changed the post to offer something else.

You, are a liar and a cheat. Nothing more.


Okay, so you lose, and then make up BS.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here.

You quote nothing, then start saying rubbish


I challenge you to provide any damned evidence to back up your weak assertions.

Loser.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Nice thread derail ...




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
That idiot gets stars for making weak claims for no good reason.



gotta love the ridiculousness of ATS.

bunch of e-tards.

I provide the evidence he needs, and he starts claiming I'm a liar.



freaking hillarious!

@megamind

chill your roll. I'm outa here.

this site is for losers and chumps.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


And what organization is this 2 page PDF form from???
What stats were used to collect the data?

Again, that is cute, but an idiotic failure.

Maybe try the FBI crime stats, instead of a 2 page PDF showing no evidence or proof.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions


chill your roll. I'm outa here.

this site is for losers and chumps.


Don't go away mad.

Just go away.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind

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


First of all the Queen can only dissolve government in the UK on the advice of the Prime Minister. The governments of any of the Commonwealth can only be dissolved by the Governor General of said country (due to the queen being CEREMONIAL)

Secondly, you do realise what it means when parliament is dissolved?

It means that all of the seats become vacant in parliament and each of the MP's that were removed must win back their seats in their local constituencies. This actually gives power back to the people of who they wish to vote in to parliament to represent them.. Kind of gives power of choice to the people no??

Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign and is known as the royal prerogative. The monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, exercising prerogative only on the advice of ministers responsible to Parliament, often through the Prime Minister or Privy Council. In practice, prerogative powers are exercised only on the Prime Minister's advice—the Prime Minister, and not the Sovereign, has control. The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (providing they command the support of the House)

Keep your name calling to yourself and try again...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I have a feeling the luciferians will not allow all these project mk-ultra slave shootings to go wasted and will try to get as many guns banned as they possibly can and they also want to save face with the NRA. The NRA should mobilise and make their voice heard; get the registered gun owners protesting the federal government if and when these new laws pass. Sitting here and complaining will not accomplish much.

The people who either take the american second amendment lightly or reject it are naive moderate left wingers who read about tyranny in history class and think atrocities commited in the past cannot happen in america because we are so free. They have not traveled the world much and do not recall past genocides such as the armenian genocide, the irish republican liberation movement, the palestinian cause for arabs, the civil wars in africa, communist revolutions throughout the word, etc. A citizenry unarmed is easy for the ptb to completly dominate over.

Granted guns alone will never solve the nwo problem. I bet many folks to this day do not even know what the nwo is because they relly strictly on msm for all their news. I like to compare sources and judge everything for myself. People live a cushioned life, are distracted, are bombarded by misinformation/disinformation, are overworked and underpaid, etc. Bad information leads to false pride and is the downfall of civilisation.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind

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 ...


Darn.......Arms and ammunition are not synonymous Arms refers to guns...ammunition refers to bullets....

Got any threes?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Just to make things clear, you are the one who is lying.

You asked me something, and I provided evidence.

That link is still there.

You asked for something more specific, so I provided an additional link to the original reply, and again the same link in a further post.

There is no "cheating" or "lying".

Now that this is cleared up.

/thread



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
That idiot gets stars for making weak claims for no good reason.



gotta love the ridiculousness of ATS.

bunch of e-tards.

I provide the evidence he needs, and he starts claiming I'm a liar.



freaking hillarious!

@megamind

chill your roll. I'm outa here.

this site is for losers and chumps.


Starring macman as you type...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Ah, the little statement of

Originally posted by unityemissions


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


Says it all.

I do love the fact that what you provided first, wasn't doing the job. So you went in and changed the post to offer something else.

You, are a liar and a cheat. Nothing more.


I stand corrected.

Your first post about stats showed stats, nothing more, but was changed to add the weak 2 page PDF.

Then your second stats post showed the weak 2 page PDF again.

I apologize for the comment stating you were a cheat and liar. I was wrong.


You still haven't given anything to show age break downs to support your claim.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 


The Governor General of said country is the Queen's representative ... the ultimate authority in that country.

wiki ...


Governor-General or Governor General is a vice-regal representative of a monarch in an independent realm or a major colonial state. Depending on the political arrangement of the territory, a Governor General can be a governor of high rank, or a principal governor ranking above "ordinary" governors.


Note that the Prime Minister has to ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament.

Why is that if the queen is ceremonial only?

And yes I do know what dissolve means ... She has the power to vacate elected official's seats!!

I read that article too ... but you seem to have left this out .... wonder why?

wiki ...


The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. However, a treaty cannot alter the domestic laws of the United Kingdom; an Act of Parliament is necessary in such cases.

The monarch is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force), accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states.[16] It is the prerogative of the monarch to summon and prorogue Parliament. Each parliamentary session begins with the monarch's summons. The new parliamentary session is marked by the State Opening of Parliament, during which the Sovereign reads the Speech from the throne in the Chamber of the House of Lords, outlining the Government's legislative agenda.[17] Prorogation usually occurs about one year after a session begins, and formally concludes the session.[18] Dissolution ends a parliamentary term, and is followed by a general election for all seats in the House of Commons. A general election is normally held five years after the previous one under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but can be held sooner if the Prime Minister loses a motion of confidence, or if two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons vote to hold an early election.

Before a bill passed by the legislative Houses can become law, the Royal Assent (the monarch's approval) is required.[19] In theory, assent can either be granted (making the bill law) or withheld (vetoing the bill), but since 1707 assent has always been granted.[20]


Pretty damn powerful ...

You can say the word CEREMONIAL until you're blue in the face, not unlike my avatar, but that doesn't change the FACTS!!

I bet most Americans didn't know this since the Queen is just ceremonial and all



Come to think of it ... our president is becoming more and more like a monarch ... down with the Monarchy

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



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


No worries, bro.

I'm just being a morning jerk.

Appreciate you being man enough to come clean with the simple misunderstanding.

Starred your post.

Here is a breakdown by age for crime from the FBI.

Note the steep drop off @ ~age25 in most categories:

Link



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Can anyone give me a reason why "I" should have a gun.

I would like you to forward me reasons.

I'll start.....

1. I don't, I have always used my fists when threatned and won.
2.


No, as you would likely just hurt yourself or someone else.

Stick with butter knives and safety scissors.


Oh noes, sounds like someone fell for the Chubby Brown butter knife joke.



new topics




 
70
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join