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: 9
116
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
What if, and this is just a thought but, if TPTB can't take your guns - they might just put RFID chips in every new one that gets sold. The Freedom Group is already buying up major gun manufacturers as well as attacking independent makers/dealers.

Plus, they already want to chip us. Fact.




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Here's what is going to happen....

You Americans will surrender your guns, except for a few amendment idealists and some extremist groups who will be dealt with.

Then your lives will go on, without interruption and in 10 years you will all have forgotten this.

I'm not saying TPTB won't use this disarming to meet their goals, but I am saying that the American public is so spineless and deceived when it comes to trusting your own government.

You sit on your hands... you let them step on your toes behind your own doorstep and you let them take your money and give them to the corporations and banks. Not necessarily because they want to, but because they have no real power, other than legislative power over each and all of you.

You will find your place amongst the cattle and you will continue to work harder, longer, cheaper.

Why? Because you have forgotten how to stand up for yourselves and your rights as people.

Best of luck to you... you are really going to need it.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
If this keeps up I see a couple ways of it going. One we let it keep going on and we end up with more ammo and fire arm bans on the books, or it all blows up and we end up in a civil war.

It's not going to end well. But I really have to pity the next few generations. Ether they end up ham stringed or they spend a few years growing up in a war zone.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is how tyranny starts, you have corruption of power and mobsters running the show in politics with their own dictatorship powers, when the people is not allowed to be part of government that is call a tyrannical dictatorship.

Sadly they cannot ban guns but due to the 2 amendment they can not stop people from owning them.

This will end up in the circuit court where it will be challenged for its constitutionality.

No state has been able to over step the 2 amendment yet, they have tried but have lost as they can not overruled it.


edit on 15-1-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Nope

Hitler didn't do anything to guns when he came to power. His most powerful tool to control people was his massive propaganda machine.

In other news---

Larry Pratt "Background checks are a waste of time"


Gun Owners Of America Executive Director Larry Pratt told Fox News Sunday‘s Chris Wallace this week that he is opposed to background checks for gun owners because they are “false security.” He added that he believed it was a waste of time because “there’s really no way to spot these problems.”


Link

All of these threads are just massive paranoia. People have been saying that Obama will confiscate everyone's guns since he was elected in 2008.

Nothing will happen. These right wing news networks and right wing nut jobs are just banking on people with irrational fears of the government implementing gun confiscation raids.


hey, you don't think the gun manufactures and dealers have anything to do with all this gun confiscation talk, do you???...nayh, because we all know that they wouldn't want to profit off of the fear, right?...right?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by IBelieveInAliens
You all need to take a step back and see that this is a good thing. For years the rest of the civilized world has looked on in horror at the rampant gun violence in America.

And America looks on in horror at the willingness to give up freedoms by the rest of the world.



You CANNOT sustain a society whose inhabitants are all pointing guns at each other. And that's the truth of it. For one thing it creates an arrogance, that uniquely American arrogance that says "I have a gun and I could shoot you and kill you if I liked".

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about, and most likely have never been here, because if you had, you'd see that NO ONE is walking around flashing guns at anyone. That is unless you go to South Central L.A., Miami, or certain parts of New York City, where they have the strictest gun laws. As for arrogance, I invite you to come to a range with me and talk to anyone there. You will not find anyone with the arrogance you speak of. In my experience gun owners are the friendliest of people, and a very social bunch. Stop getting your firearms information from the movies.



I for one will salute Obama when he disarms the American public. Perhaps it will teach American society a little humility - it'll be a new concept to many of them but I'm sure they'll get used to the feeling.


Like all liberals you confuse "ban" with "disarm".

He may very well ban assualt rifles, however I can guarantee you that will not remove a single one from the hands of any criminal. I really don't get why that's so hard for people like you to figure out.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


Dont kid yourself, once gone, they will be gone. Any control the government gets will not be returned. I dont care who comes into power, or what promises are made during the campaign the new guy wont give up anything, regardless of Political Party.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by AntiNWO
 


That is why I read some of this post and just wonder where our public education has gone.

People do not understand what a ban means from a gun control.

Both are up to constitutional challenges under the second amendment, one can not be done as the Supreme court already took the meaning of the 2 amendment and sided with the law in 2010 in all 50 states.

Gun control goes at state levels no Federal while they can try state laws will always surpass those, but is always the constitutional challenge involved and the constiution will prevail.

Incredible how people have not clue of how the second amendment truly extend when it comes to the right of guns in the US.

Only changing the 2 second amendment can take guns away and that is not going to happen historically the Supreme court will protect the Constitution as they did in 2010 ruling on gun rights.


What people needs to watch out is the type of mobsters brewing within the NY politicraps in power that are pushing a new type of open dictatorship in the state, that is more worrisome that what their gun control is.

NY politicians are traitors and people are so blind that they are not seen the real issue there.
edit on 15-1-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by flyandi
 


A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programmes (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this programme? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


I agree. The scenarios you presented, metaphorically or not, will inevitably happen. The only way to keep human beings from becoming "cattle," is by education. The general public is not aware in any way of the events going on outside of their homes, except for what has been force fed to them by so-called 'news,' channels who continue to spew out the same stories over and over again because that's what people are used to, and so that's what they will receive.
The true events, 'news,' if you will, are being kept away from the general public. Why? For the sole purpose of morphing human beings with thoughts, emotions, opinions -- LIVES... morphing them into mindless drones. While a large quantity of the population may be oblivious to the rapid global (even domestic) changes, still remains a group of people (ATS and members, for example) who are not only aware of these changes, but educated and opinionated.
It is up to these people, the strong, the independent, the educated, the selfless... It's up to them to pass on the knowledge they have to those around them who do not. They have the ability to connect with millions of people, right here on the internet. Even more so, with the people they interact with on a day to day basis, who may not even be familiar with the internet or websites like ATS. (I know I sure wasn't.) The population needs to be addressed; they need to be informed. They need to understand.
Truthfully, the issue extends much farther than a gun ban or the potential nullification of the Second Amendment. These are just tastes of the horror that will come when the human race falls victim to itself. It's a paradox, really. We are our biggest enemy, yet we are also our only solution.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
Was doing a little research into this and though I am not completely finished, there are a few things people are not quite correct about

The German gun controls were dictated to Germany in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. Gun controls started easing in the late early 1930's and it was Hitler who softened the gun control regulations even more for registered members of the Nazi party.

Yes, he did prevent the Jews and others from participating in these things...but it was not an across the board ban like so many people are saying.

I have a lot more research to do but many-many people are talking about things they only think they know.

I am a huge fan or the Constitution and the Second Amendment...but I am also a huge fan and student of history...lets get our facts straight folks....


Ok but heres the thing whatever the Treaty of Versailles prohibited.....

When Hitler started to change things up he made sure his people had guns and his target did not. What he fashioned were gun rights for the elites.

Where the current trend in the US is heading is that the gangs will have guns as well as "type A criminals", the government and its lackeys will have guns.....but all hard working, tax paying, law abiding, service to their country, ect ect ect will be made into a new "political class" of criminals.....much more to be feared, as we are being told, than the gangs or the government.

Thats what Hilter did....made Jews a new political criminal class.....and took away everything from them....




edit on 15-1-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by flyandi
 


Gun legislation has almost no impact on gun crimes. What criminal bought his gun legally? Almost none. That's why it's ridiculous, ineffective, and a complete waste of bureaucracy. The old saying goes...if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


And thankfully that's one of the issues that gun control groups can not touch or even talk about, that is why the Supreme court always side with the rights of people to protect themselves with guns under the second amendment.

No only in one state but all 50 states.

NY is heading for a long constitutional challenge or perhaps given to previous ruling on the same issue will no even last that long.

and for the mental health screening Bush try that one once when president, due to also constitutional challenges he gave up at least at federal level, I guess the traitors governmerning NY think they can resuscitate that in their state, another issue for the Supreme court to take, I guess this judges are going to be very busy in 2013



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I hope you understand my point. I am not in support of any gun regulations whatsoever. I support the Constitution and ALL the rights contained therein. I also do not support what Hitler and the Nazi party did.

I was trying to make the point that if we are going to draw on History as a source for our positions, let's at least speak about it with facts. Yes, the Jews were turned into the scapegoat for all of Germany's ailments and thus they were systematically de-humanized...along with a few other minorities and social groups. If you were of what was considered "true" German Heritage, your gun regulations were relaxed and your rights even expanded...the talk that "Hitler took the Guns" is not completely accurate...he took them from his opponents and other perceived "threats" to the German way of life. Others within the country were granted more rights...especially if they were members of the Nazi party at the time.

People have sit idly by for too long while our criminal leaders slowly erode our rights with little or no resistance from the herds. I certainly hope people draw a line in the sand once and for all and do not let things like the Patriot Act, NDAA and HR 347 continue to be passed without an outcry and an uproar...it's up to the people to put aside the ridiculous semantics of this or that argument and look at the core problem...as you are distracted and numbed out by the media...you rights are quietly being assaulted and most of the time, we don't even know it's happening until it is too late.

edit on 1/15/2013 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyandi


President Obama just said in a Press Conference that he will use his "executive" powers to introduce gun control measures... well Hitler did the same thing in 1938 and we all know how that ended.


And .... he has four more years to do so much more!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by flyandi
 


A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.



Our founders here in the US strongly held that the legitimacy of the government rested in the people. What can be seen in the German example is that the efforts of the state to protect itself ended up making it easy for a tyrant to rise up out if the mist as it were. The divisions of power in Germany were probelmatic otherwise and already under the great infulence of storng men and national hero types as well as elite industrial interests. Interests all served by the rise of a strong man or oligarchy.

Maybe somewhat rhetorical the Nazi comparison holds some truth here considering in the end the Nazis were able to come to power, form an elite government with strong ranks of hinchmen, use the press as an instrument of state propaganda and maintain the weaponless status of the population. Never mind that it doesnt look like the german citizens wanted an armed rebellion because Hitler had set about focusing thier interests on the new birth of wealth, industrialism and prosperity. He blinded their wits with big ideas about service to the state, of brining about the Utopia and then was able to redirect their wounded national pride and discontent towards others.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
NO president has the power to issue executive orders to remove constitutional rights. Just because Obama claims he can doesnt make it so. Who the hell does he think he is? How much more does he have to prove his anti-constitutional and anti-american extremism before people open their eyes?


But he is going to do that, and so much more. It's too late now. Our country is going to be very different by the end of these four yeas, and I've been saying on ATS that 2012 was not going to be the year that hell breaks loose. It will be 2013.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


Yes, I think our postions are the same here.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Here's why gun control is needed. People like this. www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
116
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join