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.
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)
Originally posted by Cynicaleye
Assualt rifles in general, burst fire or fully auto. Please explain why anybody needs an assault riffle over an handgun.
Originally posted by Cynicaleye
Assualt rifles in general, burst fire or fully auto. Please explain why anybody needs an assault riffle over an handgun.
So what is the point of more regulation on them what do you think that will accomplish?
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.
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]
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.”
He's the extremist, because his perception conveys to him the worst case scenario as the only possible outcome, to him that's reality.
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.
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.
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!
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)