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.

 

"I have executive powers over guns..." - It's starting...

page: 17
116
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   


i don't see the link between gun control and a facist overlord declaring war on poland. how what ended, we won and remembered that war is bad, well so are lethal weapons
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 

Then I guess you have no problem with a fascist overlord declaring war by creating a kill list, authorizing thousands of drones that kill more innocent civilians than terrorists, and is systematically destroying every one of the Bill of Rights. I guess this is why he gets away with it. Sad...................




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyandi
Really?



Obama to surround himself with children during gun control announcement...


washingtonexaminer.com...


edit on 15-1-2013 by flyandi because: (no reason given)


I didn't believe it at first. I started questioning in my own mind the agenda of the source.

Then I watched the video of Carney.

Straight out of his own pie-hole, it sounds like they are about to declare an undeclared war. Need to watch the announcement tomorrow, to see what is actually said. What he mentions as "possible actions" has already been done, with no effect other than to piss a bunch of people off, for 10 years.

Now they're gonna piss 'em off AGAIN?

Times might be about to get interesting.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Obama can't do too much by executive order. All he can do is apply existing law or direct agencies to make certain laws a priority.

The only thing that makes me wonder is the use of emergency powers. When there is an emergency the president has for a temporary period of time the ability to deal with the emergency without having to ask Congress for authorization. The only problem I see is that we have been under a constant presidential declaration of a state of emergency since 911. Signing an extension to the state of emergency is one of the first acts of every administration since 911. and there is some speculation that we have been under a state of emergency since FDR. And if it is true that we have been under an emergency since 911 or before that, then that really is an abuse of the office of the presidency. Emergencies are supposed to be temporary. and 12 years is not temporary its a usurpation of legislative authority

We all know that Obama is in the pockets of the big banks and TPTB. What could happen if there is no negotiation on the raising the debt limit, and there is a financial crisis and a declaration of emergency by Obama, and if there is an outbreak of violence because of the death of the dollar, I could see an executive order for gun confiscation. Then things would become really dangerous. IMO the GOP in the House have to very careful that they are not played like a fiddle by Obama where they are provoked into a no vote on raising the debt limit, causing a financial collapse, and the reaction of the public to the collapse being used as an excuse for a declaration of emergency powers and executive orders to grab guns, destroy free speech on the internet and limit protests or just declare marshall law.

There is no doubt that recent presidents have been grabbing power from congress.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Then I watched the video of Carney.



Yes, here it is posted to You Tube by the D C Examiner


Published on Jan 15, 2013
Obama plans to surround himself with children during gun control announcement





www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
As a responsible gun owner, I have to step in a give my opinion on this subject. Let me get this out first, "Our guns will not be confiscated." The weapons they are talking about, are those which are used by soldiers. These weapons are not used for target practice or hunting, they are used for mass casualties in the shortest period of time. If you want to own one of these weapons, fine, but you need to prove you are a responsible owner first. There are many psycho's in this country who are adamant on committing suicide and taking as many people as they can with them.

If you are a responsible gun owner, who has no psychological issues, you will keep your gun. Don't fall into this trap! Just in the last two days, there have been three more shootings at schools, including a technical college. If you have a family member in your home, who you feel can be a danger to others, with a weapon in your home, you should be responsible if that person is able to get a hold of it and hurt someone.

Relax! I personally, would never dream of purchasing an AK 47. Why not? Because I have no need for one. If I need to defend myself with my pistol, I will do so with one bullet at a time. If I use an AK 47, it would be overkill and I would be charged with murder, not self defense.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
As a responsible gun owner, I have to step in a give my opinion on this subject. Let me get this out first, "Our guns will not be confiscated." The weapons they are talking about, are those which are used by soldiers.


The 2nd amendment is the citizen soldiers amendment.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by 200Plus
 


No, my idea of better world is strict control over guns and a lot of things, control that has happened in totalitarian regimes, however without all the dirty crap of these regimes such as secret police, Gestapo and SS. And death penalty for those taking out a human life intentionally. Not depopulation and there is no evidence that the gov will get rid of millions, dont make me laugh


Hint from the real world - you can't have the degree of "control" you espouse WITHOUT a Secret Police apparatus. Luckily for you and your comrades. we already have the DHS in place, ready to go...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by flyandi
Really?



Obama to surround himself with children during gun control announcement...


washingtonexaminer.com...


edit on 15-1-2013 by flyandi because: (no reason given)


I didn't believe it at first. I started questioning in my own mind the agenda of the source.

Then I watched the video of Carney.

Straight out of his own pie-hole, it sounds like they are about to declare an undeclared war. Need to watch the announcement tomorrow, to see what is actually said.



Well just tune into the Rush Limbaugh and it will at some point be interrupted by the dope show.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dieseldyk
Obama can't do too much by executive order. All he can do is apply existing law or direct agencies to make certain laws a priority.


What the traitor in chief can do is to write EOs that direct alphabet soup agencies to write regulations that make it difficult and very expensive to purchase and maintain guns.

Walmart announced that while all this is going on they are not going to order any more ammo for sale after their present inventory is sold out. So the traitor in chief's scare tactics are already having an effect on sellers of guns and ammo.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by 200Plus
 


No, my idea of better world is strict control over guns and a lot of things, control that has happened in totalitarian regimes, however without all the dirty crap of these regimes such as secret police, Gestapo and SS. And death penalty for those taking out a human life intentionally. Not depopulation and there is no evidence that the gov will get rid of millions, dont make me laugh


Hint from the real world - you can't have the degree of "control" you espouse WITHOUT a Secret Police apparatus. Luckily for you and your comrades. we already have the DHS in place, ready to go...



The NSA, DHS, CIA, Justice Dept. and ATF already serve as "secret police".



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



As I stated before, civilians do not need these weapons to defend their home. If someone is riddled with bullets with a weapon such as this, the defender will likely face murder charges. We will have to wait to see what their restrictions will be. I last heard these weapons will be kept, but to purchase the ammo for these weapons, you will need a good reason to do so. Sounds good to me! These weapons are not used for self defense, nor hunting, so I agree with this policy.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
As a responsible gun owner, I have to step in a give my opinion on this subject. Let me get this out first, "Our guns will not be confiscated." The weapons they are talking about, are those which are used by soldiers. These weapons are not used for target practice or hunting, they are used for mass casualties in the shortest period of time. If you want to own one of these weapons, fine, but you need to prove you are a responsible owner first. There are many psycho's in this country who are adamant on committing suicide and taking as many people as they can with them.


There are more people killed by psycho's every year with hammers than guns.

Those mislabeled "assault weapons" are exactly the kind of weapons that the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect, because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. It is about "We the People" who are citizen soldiers of a citizen militia, having the kinds of weapons that a government soldier would have.

The 2nd Amendment gives "We the People" the God given RIGHT, to defend itself against a tyrannical government.

The government is supposed to fear the People, not the other way around.




I personally, would never dream of purchasing an AK 47. Why not? Because I have no need for one.


I would, fully automatic with a minimum 30 round clip. As a matter of fact, I'd like to own a couple of hundred, as well as a few hundred fully automatic 20MM gatling guns, with a few hundred heat seeking stinger missiles.

Why? I need them as part of a well armed, citizen militia to keep a tyrannical government at bay.


edit on 15-1-2013 by JuniorBeauchamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


How many people can a hammer kill in just seconds? That is a very, very weak argument, my friend. Militia? We are not living in the 1700's anymore.


edit on 15-1-2013 by malachi777 because: Added content



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The very existence of the second amendment is proof that the people who founded this country believed that the nation that they envisioned was safer with an armed citizenry.

The real trap to watch out for is the idea of two tiered rights where they say don't worry we won't take you guns but everyone else in the future will have their rights taken away. It is not a solution because we have no right to give away the rights of others, we can only choose to exercise the right or not. We do not get the choice to decide if a right is obsolete. Just because we are not being attack for a foreign invader at this moment does not mean that we will never have to call up an militia of armed citizens in the future. And the idea that we should limit the types of guns or the size of magazines is ridiculous. Do you think that a future foreign invader is going to come here with muskets. The second amendment is an integral element to this nations defense capabilities.

If the second amendment is truly obsolete then let the gun grab nuts set out the only constitutionally appropriate solution available to them, and that is a constitutional amendment to revoke the second amendment. Just because it is difficult to amendment the constitution is not a legitimate excuse for illegally gutting the second amendment with anything other that a constitutional amendment.

edit on 15-1-2013 by dieseldyk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


How many people can a hammer kill in just seconds? That is a very, very weak argument, my friend. Militia? We are not living in the 1700's anymore.


edit on 15-1-2013 by malachi777 because: Added content


Does time really matter? NO!

Besides, all those massacres took place in gun free zones and were specifically chosen because the killers knew the people there would be defenseless.

If there were people carrying weapons at each one, the statistics show that the killer can kill no more than 2.

What we need is more concerned citizens armed, not the government disarming law abiding citizens.
edit on 15-1-2013 by JuniorBeauchamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by Logarock
 



As I stated before, civilians do not need these weapons to defend their home. If someone is riddled with bullets with a weapon such as this, the defender will likely face murder charges. We will have to wait to see what their restrictions will be. I last heard these weapons will be kept, but to purchase the ammo for these weapons, you will need a good reason to do so. Sounds good to me! These weapons are not used for self defense, nor hunting, so I agree with this policy.


Yea I heard what you said. You dont know what you are talking about. You cant be charged with overkill murder if you have gounds to kill in the first palce.....and be it a shotgun or whatever. Are you telling me one cant "overkill" with an weapon?

And if you dont want to keep one of "these weapons" then dont. Just move along and dont tell others what they need to do.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
My grandfather, who fought in WWII and took an oath to defend the constitution told me today he didn't fight that war and make that oath for complacent people to lay down and have their 2nd amendment rights taken away.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


Militia? We are not living in the 1700's anymore.


edit on 15-1-2013 by malachi777 because: Added content


That is a bogus argument.

Regardless of the century tyranny always rears it's ugly head.

And it was tyranny that the founders wanted citizens armed with the same weapons that soldiers in the field had, in order to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government, which is exactly where this one is heading, if not already there.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
So, Obama plans to surround himself with children during his announcement. Maybe someone should show Obama photos of dead children he kills with his drones in Pakistan.



new topics

top topics



 
116
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join