Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

page: 7
245
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32
 


You realize background checks are just as much for mentally un fit people as they are criminals. What's wrong with that idea
2 things off the top ...
1. define 'mentally unfit'
2. agents of the government have no authority to snoop in medical files, period.




To you and others ...

www.montananewsreports.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">mental health

60% of gun sales include a mental health check . The idea that Some of you do not want any Kind of background Check is alarming.

I'm sorry but I don't Want the mentally unstable to be able to go to a gun show and walk out with a gun. those who want to protect their 2ND ammendment rights who are sensible would have no problem With these kinds of tests.

And those who don't want a test are either hiding something or are completely illogical about the situation'. I cant fix the link using my Samsung note 10.1 tablet,Ugh.
edit on 17-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 
Yep...same ish different era. Love the Bush executive orders now dont we.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


I totally agree not to mention the fact that we have the right to bear arms so we can protect ourselves against our government should our leader decide to overthrow the constitution and become a dictator.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Revolting against such legislation may be the right mindset, but why were there no such rallies/revolts for the signing of the NDAA indefinite detention provision? Which is about to be signed again, with an even worse provision....

People take their 2nd amendment rights very seriously, but the NDAA completely undermines the 5th & 14th amendment. The "Patriot" Act also undermines the validity of multiple amendments. Neither of these were barely contested on the level that these new gun bans are. & These gun bans aren't even blanket bans. The aforementioned laws completely circumvent 'guaranteed' Constitutional rights.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


The mental health issue is fine but how broad are they going to make it. If you are depressed (women and men get depressed because of hormones) and are on medication for a short while does that put you on a forever list? Real mental health or a goverment panel who decides mental health rulings. How do you classify true mental health? I really don't want the politicians to determine this nor do I want physicians appointed by those said politicians to determine mental health. Can the Muslim faith folks carry guns cause they may be out for Jihad? Can those weird Christian people carry guns cause you know they are just a cult? Can Blacks carry guns cause you know they know a lot of drug dealers? This is all tongue in cheek. All I'm saying is the Second Amendment should stand and we have plenty of laws on the books right now to cover gun violence. If you use one in anger you should pay the penalty. More people will be hurt if we lose our guns because the bad guys will always have guns and with no means of personal protection your 'rulers' (elected or not) can do whatever they want to do to you.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


you're 'idea' of a mental health check is making sure the applicant hasn't been involuntarily committed ... that's not quite what you think it is


as for 'mentally unfit', who decides ?
what are the suggested parameters ?? (or are we supposed to adjust those later?)

would a person who suffers Down Syndrome become unqualified by the stroke of a pen ?
what about the person with Tourette's ?
someone who suffers siezures ?
where does it end ?
or, is the suggestion that none of these ppl should be 'qualified' ??
all of them experience 'stress' and could 'snap' just like the next person.

so, when we can't keep arms from the likes of the NY Firemen shooter (convicted killer), how can we consciously restrict the rights of Anyone else ??

if Psyche intervention is soooooo effective, why wasn't Loughner, Hasan, Lanza or a series of others prevented from obtaining weapons ??
oh, that's right, they weren't identified as a potential 'threat' ... riiiiight


if you use the ATS "link" option offered, it should rectify the link problem ... that is if you'd like me to review it.

the background checks i've completed ask simple yes or no questions and do not grant authorization to review any 'medical records'.
if you've experienced different, please share a link.

it is not the Duty of government to appease your 'wants' ... it is their Duty to protect and enhance our 'rights'.

which, btw, includes access, availability, tolerance, training and less regulation of any kind ... including gun-free zones.

there is no existing Constitutional provision that provides "authority" for any agent of government to place 'conditions' on access, period.

you and those sharing your opinion should be thanking your lucky stars that we've willingly submitted


I think it would be beneficial for all if a sense of gratitude replaced the standard level of hostility expressed by many.

ETA --> how are those 'psyche evals' working out in the Law Enforcement industry ?

are they effectively weeding out the 'bad cops' ??
maybe the 'abusive' ones ??
well, how 'bout just the 'violent' ones ??? (ya know, the spouse-beaters)
the drug dealers ??
hmmmm, none of them eh ... well then, what good would they do for the citizenry ?
edit on 17-1-2013 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
If i had a dollar every time the word "revolt" has been used...i'd be a trillionaire. It's kinda the same rhetoric said, about the world coming to an end. I wish something would happen....to change our "stupidity".



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
If you guys really think he cared about protecting Americans from the dangers of guns, why didn't he do this earlier when other mass shootings took place? Why did he set a mega campaign to pass his 2000 page Obamacare, written by insurance corporations?

I mean, do we really have members (the ones not already blinded by the two party, one beast system) that believe Obama is here to protect us and keep us safe?

No, stop pointing at the kids on stage, sitting behind him as he passed the E.O.s

If Obama really cared about your safety, wouldn't he expose big pharma for fixing studies that lead to mass market consumption of anti-psychotics that are also linked to mass shootings?

Get real peeps!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Star & Flag!




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
Revolting against such legislation may be the right mindset, but why were there no such rallies/revolts for the signing of the NDAA indefinite detention provision? Which is about to be signed again, with an even worse provision....

People take their 2nd amendment rights very seriously, but the NDAA completely undermines the 5th & 14th amendment. The "Patriot" Act also undermines the validity of multiple amendments. Neither of these were barely contested on the level that these new gun bans are. & These gun bans aren't even blanket bans. The aforementioned laws completely circumvent 'guaranteed' Constitutional rights.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)


Dude, there ARE rallies and opposition to NDAA, except there is no agenda for the MSM to be talking about it so you never hear of those things happening.

People are talking about and even organization NULLIFICATION for NDAA just like they are talking about NULLIFICATION for Obama's E.O.s This is happening all over the country.

NULLIFICATION has just started getting popular again within the last year or so.

We're getting ready to file petitions to Los Angeles City Council for NDAA NULLIFICATION. Get active, do something.

The PEN is MIGHTIER than the SWORD. The Second Amendment is the last resort to tyranny.

Many on the left try to make gun owners out to be some crazy gun toting red neck that hoards guns. Every single gun owner I know is some of the most level headed people I've ever met. Very peculiar about safety in the general sense of the word.

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



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 



but these people are acting like the president just wrote an EO to take guns away!


Why do you think he didn't?



Look, I'm going to say this once, so listen up, and listen good.

These people want to take away all guns, they have stated so themselves.

This entire Gun "Debate" was an attempt to do just that.....

But you have to remember, these people are neither stupid, nor blind.

They aren't just going to out and out "Ban Guns".... because there could be a backlash that would potentially threaten their power.

So, they do what any clever tyrant does.... They make some non-committal statements, and then they wait, and judge public reaction to see how quickly, or IF they can proceed.

This time, they even suggested banning guns, and they got their talking heads on the news, trying their emotional manipulation, they got the paid celebrities advocating the total disarming of law abiding citizens of their RIGHT to keep and bear arms....

And the political administration said NOTHING, and just observed.


When the righteous indignation of a nation that demanded a halt to gun confiscation reached their ears..... They wisely decided against total gun confiscation at this time, but not without trying more subversive ways of attempting their gun confiscation techniques.

It looks like they are going ahead with the psychological classification system, whereby they label anyone likely to try to stop them as "Criminally Insane", which you can see hinted at in the medical related executive orders.

They can't do anything to take away guns, because that would rightly lead to open revolt, and they KNOW this.... now at least....

So, they took a knee, and are just running out the clock.


IF we hadn't raised Holy Hell... you can bet that they would have gone and confiscated as many guns as they could get away with.

We drew a line in the sand.

You are welcome.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 

did it ever occur to you that the aforementioned legislation was written in such a manner that the public at large couldn't really comprehend, let alone voice a valid opinion when it passed ?

heck, the details are STILL being argued ... what makes you think the average Joe could make heads or tails out of the fineprint ??

the NDAA, Patriot Act and others were enacted via an emotional catalyst ... and, it is good to see a majority of ppl aren't that gullible this time.

yes, there should have been serious uproars but ppl don't generally take a stand over something they don't quite understand, unless we're talking gun control


btw, the other legislation can be repealed ... especially if we still have adequate arms



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by dogstar23
 


Manditory background checks simply means that gun ownership is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the government.


So to be clear, you are against background checks

yes.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   

FROM OUR COLD, DEAD BRAINS!!




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


those who want to protect their 2ND ammendment rights
NO.
the right of defense is natural, unalienable and inherrent.
the 2nd Amendment restricts government from infringing upon that right.

i, nor any other American need to protect the 2nd Amendment, we simply need to exercise it against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

{that'd be enemies of Liberty or my Liberty weapon of choice}
it's pretty simple, really.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CristobalColonic
 



FROM OUR COLD, DEAD BRAINS!!



Don't be so hard on yourself.
edit on 17-1-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Not sure where you, get off putting words in my mouth. The entire beginning of your post is quite dishonest. So you don't want any background checks because you're to lazy to come up with a solution that doesnt infringe your rights to buy a gun. Im just happy people like you ,against background checks are in the for minority.God help us if a majority thought in such an extremist View on the subject



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Using your take, where does it stop. Your guns won't do a thing to the trillions invested in tanks, missiles, drones, and oh ya, ballistic missiles and nukes. Should you have a right to those as well?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Even if we could, who the hell could afford one?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by T4NG0
 


i dont believe you should unless you have a permit for concealed its not illegal to walk down the street with a rfle in plain view on your back in most states






top topics



 
245
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join