Gun Control is the greatest threat to America (heres why)

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


I don't know if it's extreme as you make it out to sound, but we are seeing a lot of places/politicians/sheriffs vowing to ignore the ban. I was too young to remember, can someone tell me if that happened when the last ban was being brought up in the 90's?
edit on 17-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


NO ONE is talking gun confiscation.
They wouldn't do that, too obvious.
All they have to do is say that "assault" weapons can't be transferred to another person after the ban is in place and then give it 50 years (probably ban handguns and whatever else along the way).

Cops already come and take prescription pain pills from the homes of elderly cancer patients when they pass (was in the news the other day). So they could do the same for an assault weapon.

Confiscation without the public thinking twice. It would take time, but they have all of that in the world.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


lol.... I guess I forgot the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban banned all guns


Oh wait..... it didn't ban or confiscate any existing guns. All it did was ban certain semi-autos from being created and sold.




edit on 17-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Sen D.Feinstein (D-CA)

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up every one of them Mr & Mrs America turn em all in I would have done it. I could not do that the votes weren't here."

(I'm not going to post my opinion, because it seems everytime I do, a mod that doesn't agree with it deletes it) Thank God they can't treat the 2nd amendment the way they do the 1st...
edit on 17-1-2013 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 





Don't fall into their trap. They are simply stating progressive rhetoric. Don't argue with responses that don't have merit. Notice how people who dissent against the gov are painted as crazy, stupid, dangerous, don't care about kids. That is by design. If these posters aren't shills to the agenda, then they are responding that way due to programming, subconciously. They've been trained to attack.


Yeah. Don't reply to us. We have cooties.

If you don't agree with the paranoid right wing extremist agenda you're labeled anti-gun. So weird.
edit on 17-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Well you too have cooties.

Ultra liberal cooties. Probably diseases too.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


I'm not a liberal.

Try again.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


your a water bottle sheep with an obama head



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


Ok and?

One senator is nothing.

Ron Paul wants to end the fed, is that happening? NO.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


I thought the charter was up this year.

Looks like it is happening.

But Ron Paul is not the President still.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


I actually read the actual charter and nothing about 2012 was in it (from what I remember, could be wrong, was a while ago). Conspiracy sites do claim that though. But even if it were congress would just renew it again. Get real.

And Feinstein isn't the president either.

edit on 17-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


No because its designed to fail.

The gun grabbing will happen alongside the financial crisis and political fallout, including obamacare, blueprinted to destroy the republic.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


Just like George Bush was supposed to declare martial law and become a dictator



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Well he left office but he kinda did. He opened the door to DHS and the patriot act. Where are we now? Oh yes, NDAA 2.0

I call it like this.

Clinton: Bump
Bush: Set
Obama: Spike



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


The government has been corrupt since George Washington. This is nothing new.

Mr. Washington gave us the first "federal reserve"...


The First Bank of the United States was a central bank, chartered for a term of twenty years, by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. Establishment of the Bank was included in a three-part expansion of federal fiscal and monetary power (along with a federal mint and excise taxes) championed by Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution.


en.wikipedia.org...

And taxation without representation...rather ironic. Waged war against the former revolutionary soldiers and oppressed them. How dare they protest!!!


The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who used their leftover grain and corn in the form of whiskey as a medium of exchange were forced to pay a new tax. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to increase central government power, in particular to fund his policy of assuming the war debt of those states which had failed to pay. The farmers who resisted, many war veterans, were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Maybe I should have said anti-2nd? anti-rights? anti-freedom?

I don't really care what you label yourself as, just as you don't care that I am neither extreme or right-wing. I don't own any gun that would be impacted by legislation. However, legislation without amending the 2nd and make it a privilage of the state to bear arms as prescribed, will be unconstitutional and therefore does not have to be obeyed anyway. If you aren't spouting the same tired retorts with intent - then you are trolling and using all the right buzzwords. Either way, your (as well as others) intent is the same . . . to put dissenters in the "crazy/stupid" box to demean the messenger, as you don't have a reasonable argument to present.

However, my utility of the proposed ban aside, it is the in and we can't give the gov an in. These measures don't happen over-night. Took a couple decades in UK and they are still going for more.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


Ok and?

One senator is nothing.

Ron Paul wants to end the fed, is that happening? NO.




Ron Paul has nothing to do with this.

One senator is all it takes to write legislation

You need to try harder with your logical fallacy trolling

Stop Baiting...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


Clearly you didn't get the whole point of the statement.

Just because one Senator wants something to happen, doesn't mean it will.........

Just like the Fed isn't ending anytime soon.

Just like abortion isn't going to be made illegal anytime soon.

And why am I a troll? Because I'm raining on the right wing paranoia parade with logic?
edit on 17-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
*
edit on 17-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 





No one is banning all guns. Don't know where this idea came from.


the right wing blogosphere, that's where. No one is coming to take your guns, even weapons that would be "banned" won't be confiscated, you'll keep your guns. they will just be regulating the type of guns and accessories you can purchase from that point on.

It's fiscally impossible for the US government to confiscate your guns. Use some logic once and awhile.

the biggest threat to America is the people promising violent revolution should gun control laws be passed or amended. Those people are the threat, those people will be the ones responsible for your loss of liberty.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by txinfidel
Most of all of you know that already. Denying the 2nd Amendment right is a huge threat to America.

However, I want to add another angle on this topic that has been missed and I think it needs to be looked at by both sides (wether you believe in gun control or not).

The concept is simple.

Anyone who is a police officer or in the military has taken an oath to defend the constitution. Therefore, by the President taking such action by the stroke of a pen, he is effectively breaking up the police and military and the rule of law in this once great nation which by the way can be great again. But we need to fight the good fight and make it great again.

But for now, say goodbye to the rule of law, because its going to take a hiatus until order is restored.


Come back and discuss this when there's been a stroke of the pen. Until then it's all fantasy.





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join