{Gun Control} Jesse Jackson: “Anti-govt. people” with “Confederate ideology” are Terrorists!

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 





Assualt rifles in general, burst fire or fully auto. Please explain why anybody needs an assault riffle over an handgun.


We don't have to aint that great?

No person or government has any right whatsoever to even ask that,
edit on 4-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Talking about being backed into a corner...




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


I would also refer you to the link in my signature for a reference as to why one would need such a weapon. Though I do not expect you to understand nor do I expect you to consider the view point I present.
edit on 4-2-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Assualt rifles in general, burst fire or fully auto. Please explain why anybody needs an assault riffle over an handgun.


Still waiting on those posts you stated where ATS'ers threatened violence.

Why does anyone need a Semi-Automatic rifle over a handgun??
Because we have the Guaranteed Right to do so.


Why must you post insults and name calling on ATS over debating like a grownup?
See how it can be turned...


The term Assault weapon really is for the lazy masses of those that want to remove certain scary looking firearms, because they are scared of them and people that own them.

Please, go learn something about the topic you are retorting to.
edit on Mon Feb 4 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


The only person who thinks Jesse Jackson is worth anything anymore is Jesse Jackson.

It just goes to show you how detached some of these people are. It's like they live in their own little bubble and think that everyone else also lives in that bubble. Give me a break, I don't really have anything valuable to add to this conversation. Just wanted to voice my discontent with JJ.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The NRA couldn't have picked a better spokesman for the anti-gun crowd.

Please oh please let him represent the anti-gun crowd!



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


Backed in to a corner?

No because the question implies my rights come from you and government they don't, neither has any right to ask what I spend my money on.

Our rights come from the creator, not my next door neighbor, not government and we do not have to explain ourselves to anyone.
edit on 4-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye


Assualt rifles in general, burst fire or fully auto. Please explain why anybody needs an assault riffle over an handgun.


Assault rifles are already heavily regulated and the last time one was used in a major crime was back in the90s when some guys robbed a bank in California. On top of that they are very expensive for an M-16 which is what AR-15s look like cost about 10 to 20 thousand plus you need a tax stamp which is around 200 dollars. I do not know of any crimes that would have been prevented in the last 15 to 20 years with more regulations them.

Here is the regulation on them.

Federal Firearms Regulations

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
So what is the point of more regulation on them what do you think that will accomplish?


I will never own an assault weapon in my lifetime they are too expensive and burn through expensive ammo but I don’t think it is right to take away those weapons from those who do own them legally. To be honest if I had a .50 Cal rifle I would be more dangerous than anyone with a full auto baring a M2 but those things are expensive as well and ammo was $5 dollars a round last time I checked.
edit on 4-2-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Jackson's comments are just to further a psy-op campaign started in the mid/late nineties. The progressives have been on a slow play to revise history and change the fundamental values of this country.

He is gettting his language from two doc that promote this idea . . . but just know, it is being taught to all those in law school now, so good luck not having all judges thinking this way in a generation

Secret History of the 2nd

Conor Cruise O'Brien[407] argues that Thomas Jefferson ought to be ejected from the pantheon of venerated Founders of the republic.[408] His reason is two-pronged: Jefferson was a virulent racist, even by the standards of seventeenth century Virginia,[409] and Jefferson was an insurrectionist.[410] O'Brien worries that Jefferson will give aid and comfort to the contemporary radical militia movement. "[I]f this movement prospers ¾ as I fear it may in the coming century," he writes, "then it will develop its own intellectuals, its own ideologies, and its own press, and [Page 391] these are certain to seek and find legitimation for their revolution ¾ including its excesses ¾ in the writings of Thomas Jefferson."[411]


Where it is claimed that Jefferson and Madison strongarmed their way to the bill of rights, in order to protect slavery. You see, they were racist insurrectionists, anti-federalists, and therefore we should discount the bill of rights!!!

or this document:
West Point domestic Anti-federalists

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”


Both docs, one from 1996 and one from 2013, both make the "anti-federalist" connection, as well as the racist connection . . . oh, don't forget about being violent terrorists.

All of this for believing in things like the bill of rights . . . silly racists and their freedoms (wait?).

Psy-op to revise history . . . and guess what, if you are under-thirty or have kids growing up today . . . it's working on you/them.
edit on 2/4/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/4/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/4/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I do agree that the people who have taken their right to bears arms to mean "right to personal self-defense" to "right to violently overtake a popularly elected government" are kooky. The truth is that if the military was ever actively fighting against it's own citizens, no amount of handguns or assault rifles would ever stop them.

Personal defense is fine and sane.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




He's the extremist, because his perception conveys to him the worst case scenario as the only possible outcome, to him that's reality.

I've seen so many people on these forums talking about the worst case scenario involving gun control being the only possible outcome on this forum. Nearly everyone thinks they are going to ban all guns and come door to door collecting everyone's guns.
Regardless of what he said, that statement you said is extremely ironic!

Plus, not even black people take Jesse Jackson seriously anymore. Who cares what he says?
edit on 4-2-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


The main stream media cares, and they're the ones who choose our presidential candidates for us.

Jesse is a racist moron. I know from actual first hand observation.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by allstonmurdaz
 


Many US historic figures have written about the people wresting power from the government. I am not saying it is going to happen in my lifetime but the possibility exists. The idea that our soldier would turn on us like many believe is ill founded however if that did happen the citizens of the US would have the upper hand. We have the numbers and the know how to fight an all-out guerrilla war which would render those big toys useless fairly quickly.

Remember veterans outnumber active duty 4 to 1 not only that but a good portion of our troops are not stationed in the US. One of the main reasons we had such a hard time in the Middle East is because they do not wear uniforms and blend into the populace if they had worn uniforms those wars would have been won in the first year.

That is saying our troops wouldn’t simply switch over to our side and as a former soldier I can say that most would. Staying well-armed is enough of a deterrent to those in our government to where such a thing probably will not happen however disarming is inviting history to repeat itself.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Jesse Jackson is a CIA tool.

He also helped to stage MLK's murder.



where has the movement been since he selfishly stole to spotlight?

no where, thats where..

I wouldn't be surprised if he received a kickback for drugs hitting poor neighborhoods over the years.



keeping the church goer's in check.. "consoling" them.. as the crips/blood crack wars spread

throughout the ghettos across the nation.

what a useless fool, to the people that is, not the establishment.
edit on 4-2-2013 by reeferman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
The confederate ideology does exist amongst some gun owners, I have lost count of how many people I've seen on this forum that threaten violence if the Government even thinks about banning some assualt rifles..it's dangerous. Yes, most gun owners are sensible, however there are those who will shoot people if the goverment create laws regulating gun ownership, and this site is a perfect example of that ideology. How dare Jesse point out something that exists, something which is growing and will eventually spill over. Will planes be shot down? I'm not sure, but I'm certain there will be major instances of violence from hardcore gun owners.



So standing up for constitutional rights is “anti-government”?

Then please define what its called when law makers ignore the constitution and make up their own rules.



Unfortunately it's called business as usual anymore. I can't believe people are still touting the crap cynical is rehashing. I am now of the firm belief that anyone that spouts stuff like that off has to be receiving monetary compensation of some form to say it. There is no way they are that out of the loop of whats going on. Onto Jessie Jackson, why do these idiots live forever it seems? It must be some big cosmic joke or something that crooks and thief's rarely get hit by a bus, choke to death on a piece of food, etc.....



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
You're a long time poster on here, especially in gun debate threads. If you're seriously telling me you haven't seen any posts threatening violence against the goverment then you're lying.


You are confusing promises of defense against an attack by the government with a threat of violence against the government. It is all perspective, from my perspective defense against violence, even if force is used, is not to be classified as violence. It would be far more accurate to state that there are Americans who will not be bullied and turn the other cheek if the government fails to mind their place and steps over that line.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
The NRA couldn't have picked a better spokesman for the anti-gun crowd.

Please oh please let him represent the anti-gun crowd!


He certainly did wonders for the sport of men's college lacrosse.


I agree though. It seems like America's high profile wealthy and elite are hacking off their own noses despite their face in this gun control debate. This is one of those situations where I'm sure Obama wishes he'd run a few dozen more "common people" out on the stage instead of embarrassing himself with the hoity-toity Hollywood stars and ridiculously rich off donations community leaders that so few Americans can relate to in pushing for Barack's cause du jour.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
Jackson's comments are just to further a psy-op campaign started in the mid/late nineties. The progressives have been on a slow play to revise history and change the fundamental values of this country.

He is gettting his language from two doc that promote this idea . . . but just know, it is being taught to all those in law school now, so good luck not having all judges thinking this way in a generation

Secret History of the 2nd

Conor Cruise O'Brien[407] argues that Thomas Jefferson ought to be ejected from the pantheon of venerated Founders of the republic.[408] His reason is two-pronged: Jefferson was a virulent racist, even by the standards of seventeenth century Virginia,[409] and Jefferson was an insurrectionist.[410] O'Brien worries that Jefferson will give aid and comfort to the contemporary radical militia movement. "[I]f this movement prospers ¾ as I fear it may in the coming century," he writes, "then it will develop its own intellectuals, its own ideologies, and its own press, and [Page 391] these are certain to seek and find legitimation for their revolution ¾ including its excesses ¾ in the writings of Thomas Jefferson."[411]


Where it is claimed that Jefferson and Madison strongarmed their way to the bill of rights, in order to protect slavery. You see, they were racist insurrectionists, anti-federalists, and therefore we should discount the bill of rights!!!

or this document:
West Point domestic Anti-federalists

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”


Both docs, one from 1996 and one from 2013, both make the "anti-federalist" connection, as well as the racist connection . . . oh, don't forget about being violent terrorists.

All of this for believing in things like the bill of rights . . . silly racists and their freedoms (wait?).

Psy-op to revise history . . . and guess what, if you are under-thirty or have kids growing up today . . . it's working on you/them.
edit on 2/4/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/4/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/4/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)


This made me feel sick to my stomach. Nevertheless, thanks for posting it Solomon.

I'm 29 but do not recall hearing that crap in school, thank goodness. In all honesty, I hardly learnt anything in school growing up. To me, it was all repetitive mind-numbing work that seemed more like a factory of kids than a place to learn. There were a few good teachers that really got me thinking and wanting to learn more on certain subjects (wish there were more like that). But mainly it was a socially awkward emotional miserable experience that seemed to turn me into a sheep (I understand that that is not everyone's experience, but school shouldn't be a one size fits all). However, I still graduated from HS and went on to graduate from college later on (which I somewhat regret, but that's another story).

It wasn't until I was out of HS that I started to read a lot of different books, do a lot of research online, and just start to question things in general. Ever since then, I've been on the hunt for more knowledge and truth. Although, it's always good to have some wisdom along the way. Knowledge without wisdom is indeed a dangerous thing. It's funny though, I feel as though I have learnt more on my own than from what any educational institution has done thus far. Not that I am ungrateful in any way, but was the cost worth the end result for something I could probably do on my own? Hmmmm.....

As for the OP, I heard some of the Reverend's speeches here and there many years back which made me cringe a lot. I pretty much stopped listening to anything he had to say (well...until this video) because it was painful at times. Of course he has the right to say whatever he wants, however, I find his arguments and ideas to be quite extreme and hate filled. I have a feeling that if he were to read this, he'd call me a racist or something.....



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
For those who ask "Why do you need an 'assault weapon'?". Here is why: You don't, but that doesn't matter. As Americans we have the freedom of choice in the matter. I don't need one, I'd like to have one though. That's like asking someone "Why do you have a Ferrari when you could have a Camry?" Because he wanted one, and had the means to buy it. I don't need a car that hits 60 in 3 seconds or does over 200 miles an hour, but I'd like to be able to have on, just like I don't need a BAR, but I'd like to have one.

One of the things that makes this country what it is is freedom of choice. I want a 44oz soda, why shouldn't I be able to have one?



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


Thanks for sharing. That 2nd video is awesome. The video clip is from the documentary film, The American Drug War: The Last White Hope.

Thought I had seen that doc before because it sounded familiar but didn't recognize anything from that clip. Perhaps I'm thinking of Drugs, Inc. Anyway, going to try and find time to watch the whole thing.

All glory to the Hypno-toad!!!





posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Finally me and Slapstick Jackson agree on something.

I am anti-government.





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join