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.

 

Gun Confiscation Bill Introduced in Congress

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



That's because Alex Jones did his usual fear-mongering spin. And the OP, instead of reading something first before posting, perpetuated that false spin onto this forum.


Kinda a just like our POTUS and Homeland Security using AlCIAda to scare the American sheep into thinking that their Federal parents are going to protect us????????

Funny how the same spin, isn't so funny when it is used against ya isn't it????



Shows your ignorance, when you attack the source who actually is right!!! Try looking up the actual bill on the government website!!!!! It is real!!!


To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.


Source

Notice the word...."SURRENDERING"????






DOH!!!
edit on 17-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven
if you read the OP its obviously a credit program

A credit program is the opposite of confiscation:


confiscate
v confiscate [ˈkonfiskeit]

to seize or take (something) away



Which brings me back to the title of this thread as knowingly false, misleading, and inaccurate.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by six67seven
 


Here's an intersting side note...

If this passes, tax-paying gun owners in this Country, will in effect, be paying to remove many desirable guns from the land, forever...The taxes credited will have to be made up with other taxes. OUR TAXES. So, the Feds want to borrow the money from us, to buy guns for them, that we can't have....???




all government spending is paid for by taxpayers (or import duty payers, or customers of Govt owned trading concerns, who are inevittably taxpayers, etc) - so what?


So of course the general public will pay for any Govt "buy back" option ...........why not? the aim is to reduce the mayhem that assault weapons can make easier to cause, so there is a public benefit.

What is the problem with a public benefit paid for by public funds?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



A credit program is the opposite of confiscation


So here we have another progressive using semantics trying to derail the thread????

To me it sounds like the perfect way to start a brainwashing program for the sheeple to buy into!

Grats on buying into it!

Bottom line, the dollar is tanking, Americans have bought into the propoganda allowing the government to divide us beyond repair, and yet here you are acting like the government whom created all of these problems are going to be the ones who save us????


Good luck!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Americans say..stay out of our business and deal with your own crap. Well if guns from America are killing Canadians then it is our problem.

They will then say..it is our border that should take care of it, well if we really are going to do something about it..should the source of the problem which is America be also Canada and Mexico's problem?

These governments should put some type of pressure on the US's government on controlling their gun issue...so that they don't become our countries problems.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kobewan69
Why is everybody so pissed off? They want to ban Assault weapons. That makes complete sense. Not to mention that seriously, there is something really wrong with you if you own an assault rifle. Why on earth would you need one? Do you plan on invading a country? Is a pistol not enough? Really. Why all the fuss about it, it's normal to not allow everybody to own assault rifles
You Know , your right , If it was someones kid on this site that got killed , they wouldn't be screaming all this gun control crap, do we really need assault weapons in the US ? No we don't need them , there only purpose is for war ,nothing else . I know what it's like to lose a child , and as a parent ,you will do anything to prevent this from ever happening again , and I don't mean by arming teachers with guns. Assault weapons need to be banned !



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
It really is amazing that so many people are freaking clueless.

Those who give up their weapons are not and have never been a threat from those who know US history confiscation is nothing new FDR did it for gold.

Also sick and tired of those who are trying to criminalize a constitutional right.

ETA:

Guess people forget who armed the IRS Agents, and that doesn't seem to be working out too well.

www.reuters.com...

So come on now do your part IRS to make children "safer".
edit on 17-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by six67seven
 


I am not sure you know the definition of "confiscation"?

This a volountary "gun buyback" via the tax code. No confiscation involved what-so-ever.

Not the best idea and the bill won't pass...but BS doesn't benefit the debate much.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
The BS is people thinking the second amendment is up for debate its not the first isn't so what the hell makes people the second is?

Oh because pundits think it should be.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



A credit program is the opposite of confiscation


So here we have another progressive using semantics trying to derail the thread????



This response is hilarious. That "progressive" was simply pointing out that words have meaning...Someone politely pointing out that water is wet..."Progressive!!!"

A program that offers a 2k tax credit for those that volountarily give them a gun....is not "confiscation"...

It's like idealogical dementia that has progressed to the point where certain folks no longer understand the meaning of simple words.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The BS is people thinking the second amendment is up for debate its not the first isn't so what the hell makes people the second is?

Oh because pundits think it should be.


The first amendment has all types of regulation....Pornography...advertising ciggerretes to kids on the Disney channel...screaming fire in a crowded theater...

Why do you think the 2nd Amendment stands alone as "right" without exception? The conservative supreme court ruled that it could and should be regulated...Scalia et al. Geez...it's the ONLY amendment in the bill of rights that has the word "regulated'!.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Not surprising words coming from one!


Did you read the bill?

The wording says "surrendering", so "confiscate", "surrendering" doesn't sound as rosy as your trying to paint it now does it?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





The first amendment has all types of regulation....Pornography...advertising ciggerretes to kids on the Disney channel...screaming fire in a crowded theater...


Really do they run a federal background check when a person buys a playboy?

Hell no they don't and consider the internets what the hell has all that regulation that so many people just love done?

Stopped anything nope as with all laws/regulations/sanctions does is punish after the fact.




Why do you think the 2nd Amendment stands alone as "right" without exception? The conservative supreme court ruled that it could and should be regulated...Scalia et al. Geez...it's the ONLY amendment in the bill of rights that has the word "regulated'!


My/ our rights DO NOT COME FROM GOVERNMENT altho far too many people who claim to be intelligent just can't grasp that concept.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by six67seven
 


Here's an intersting side note...

If this passes, tax-paying gun owners in this Country, will in effect, be paying to remove many desirable guns from the land, forever...The taxes credited will have to be made up with other taxes. OUR TAXES. So, the Feds want to borrow the money from us, to buy guns for them, that we can't have....???




all government spending is paid for by taxpayers (or import duty payers, or customers of Govt owned trading concerns, who are inevittably taxpayers, etc) - so what?


So of course the general public will pay for any Govt "buy back" option ...........why not? the aim is to reduce the mayhem that assault weapons can make easier to cause, so there is a public benefit.

What is the problem with a public benefit paid for by public funds?



Reduce mayhem? As a public benefit? What do you think the Feds are doing to the public? With their ridiculous ideas, bills and executive actions, claiming that "assault weapons" in the hands of law abiding, tax-paying citizens are in any way, shape or form, the cause of "mayhem"???

Give me a break! Anyone who can't see the writing on the wall, as to how this is going to turn out, if Barry and his myopic flunkies, get their way, is as near-sighted and ostrich-like as they come!

My taxes, should be spent as I, and my fellow taxpayers, see fit!

NOT, on a bunch of "feel good" half-baked, partisan ideas that benefit NO ONE, and just criminalize the ones who are footing the bill...!!!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Every time an anti-gun law is introduced, a progressive gets his wings.



OMG that was TOO funny!

While we often have different views points, on guns we're on the same team here and that was TOO FUNNY!


Derek



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by wrksstudios
 


naw we can give them some of our guns,the broken ones the ones that we dont want and cant sell for any decent amount of money if this passes just buy up a junk gun and trade it in for 2 grand,easy way to make uncle sam feel good about giving us money for stuff thats crap or already broken....nothing in the law says they have to be working lol we will just keep the good guns and give them the crap



Seriously I dont want to chime in again, but this bill IS totally idiotic. Replies such as that and others make clear HOW idiotic this bill is. Give them "free money" so they can buy more guns? What idiot came up with that idea?

And..as if the potential psychos and killers will trade-in their weapons for good?

It's a given that THOSE who WILL give their weapons are very, very unlikely NOT those who will at some point go berzerk at the next school killing spree.

Let's assume I am *for* fun control - but asking people to voluntarily "trade-in" their weapons for money is the stupidest thing I can even imagine to go about it.
edit on 17-1-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
It's another Nudge.

Chip, chipping away....
Chip, chipping awaayyy....(sung to Paul Simon's "Slip Sliding Away")



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by wrksstudios
 


naw we can give them some of our guns,the broken ones the ones that we dont want and cant sell for any decent amount of money if this passes just buy up a junk gun and trade it in for 2 grand,easy way to make uncle sam feel good about giving us money for stuff thats crap or already broken....nothing in the law says they have to be working lol we will just keep the good guns and give them the crap



Seriously I dont want to chime in again, but this bill IS totally idiotic. Replies such as that and others make clear HOW idiotic this bill is. Give them "free money" so they can buy more guns? What idiot came up with that idea?

And..as if the potential psychos and killers will trade-in their weapons for good?

It's a given that THOSE who WILL give their weapons are very, very unlikely NOT those who will at some point go berzerk at the next school killing spree.

Let's assume I am *for* fun control - but asking people to voluntarily "trade-in" their weapons for money is the stupidest thing I can even imagine to go about it.
edit on 17-1-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)


True. All valid points.

The rub in the bill though, to someone with extensive knowledge of weapons, is that several of the ones listed in the bill, can be purchased for as little as a few hundred dollars, while others can be valued well in excess of the $2,000, tax break....The Keltec Sub 2000, the Hi-point carbines, Tec-22s, and others can all be bought for less than $500...But a tricked out AR-10 can run you $3,000 and currently climbing!

This is a gun grab!!! There are no two ways about it! It makes no difference how pretty the dress is, she's still a TRAMP!

What is interesting, though, is the weapons list used in this bill, looks strangely familiar....Maybe the bill's sponsors know something that we don't?



edit on 1/17/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: added text



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Is it true that the sponsor of this bill has an affiliation with the Communist Party?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   


TextWhy is everybody so pissed off? They want to ban Assault weapons. That makes complete sense. Not to mention that seriously, there is something really wrong with you if you own an assault rifle. Why on earth would you need one?


You must be from another country. Or maybe New York.

NOWHERE in theconstitution does it talk about "need". What it does say is: Shall not be infringed

Have a 3 bedroom house? Only two people living there?

YOU DON'T NEED THAT.

10 acres of land and just 5 people?

YOU DON'T NEED THAT

Get the point?

Let's leave the determination of "need" to dictators.
edit on 17-1-2013 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join