Clear Channel Not Playing "Come and Take It" Commercial

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".


And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".

It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.

So yes...we can regulate the sale and ownership requirements for guns without even having to talk about the 2nd.




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 



Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
... all rational minded people would see the need to own smalls arms, carried by hand, in the defense of oneself.


And Obama and Congress agree with you. So do I. What's the issue? This ad starts of with Obama and Congress wanting to take away our guns. That's not even happening! It's irrational, illogical and a fantasy.


No, they don't agree with me at all. They want to claim the authority to decide what small arms I am allowed to have, and they DO NOT have the authority to do so. If I can be trusted with a 10 round magazine, why can't I be trusted with a 100 round magazine? If I can be trusted with a standard shotgun then why can't I be trusted with an AR-15? I am either evil or I am not. The question of why I would need a 100 round magazine is irrelevant... I am either a trusted and responsible, law abiding citizen or I am not. There is no grey area here. Shall not be infringed means that the FedGov has absolutely NO AUTHORITY whatsoever in any way shape or form. They have no authority to enact any gun law whatsoever... period.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   


And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".


I suggest some people look up the definitions of the words: ownership,keep, and bear.




It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.


I also suggest some people look up the interstate commerce clause that is behind that so called "power to regulate".
edit on 12-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth.


Ouch...okay there BH, didn't mean to offend you.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth.

YOU said...and I quote:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That ad could be interpreted as a threat to the president. That's one reason I can think of. Sounds like "fighting words".

So you did think of that reason...I didn't put those thoughts in your head.



Actually you were the first to mention it as a threat.
I see nothing wrong with what you said.
I just don't agree and believe we should be making more stern comments to these elected officials.
They work for us...not the other way around.

We don't need to sit back a watch, we don't need to make idle threats.
Especially these days, because it seems we have less and less to fight for.






posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


Ok, so what I'm loving about this video is...

1. YES it is a direct answer to the gun-grabbing Agenda 21 pushing globalist elite.
2. We haven't lost our right to free speech, as far as I know.
3. It echos the sentiments of millions of people in the great United States of America

Why are we so afraid to come right out and say it? Are we afraid it's going to push their buttons?
They don't give a rats patootie about us, they just want to control us, starting with our guns, then speech, homes, land, etc...They are already trying to kill us with GMO foods, Chemtrails, vaccinations and so much more.

I don't even own a gun, but I still support anyone who has the guts to stand up to the criminals in the White House.

I will stand beside them and die beside them if I have to...if it means my grandchildren will not be sent to the Fema Camps to die horrible deaths.

We as citizens need to wake up and speak up.

Thanks for listening.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


Dear Brother,
Who gives a flying flick if the msm will or will not play a commercial.
It is their media, similar to ATS, we have free speech here as long as it is in line with ATS views.
It is their chalkboard, so they are free to erase our chalk.
What we need to know is that we have our own chalkboard, and it is much bigger than any news corporation.
I would suggest we use our own personal chalkboards and ask our friends and family to spread this video.
Let it go VIRAL!! The msm cannot stop this without waking many more sleeping giants.
Most of us live and breath, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, but this message we should give freely.
Go and give it!

The PTB sure hate our internet, it allows us to comunicate freely.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Logarock
 



Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".


And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".

It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.

So yes...we can regulate the sale and ownership requirements for guns without even having to talk about the 2nd.


We are not the first to talk about these issues. Its has been argued in courts with some upheld and some not that control and regulation is infringment.

so no the government just cant do whatever it want when it comes to guns and the 2nd.


And no you cant talk aboutnguns in this country apart from the 2nd amendment.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Indigo5
 

really ???
you post someone else's interpretation of what you failed to review ??
typical ... hey, believe what you will, i've read it.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt


Yes...I trust the dozens of independant researchers and fact checkers that have each thoroughly researched the issue over the idealogically addled opinion of an anonymous ATS poster.

Your claim is known bunk...agendized propaganda...BS

hey it's your ship, why should i care if it sinks ??
at least i do know that those "fact checkers" of yours have certainly gotten more 'facts wrong' than right over the years and i also know they get it wrong more than i ever have.

so, do as you will ... i'll be busy protecting our rights and our freedom.
and, no SAT will ever change that.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That ad could be interpreted as a threat to the president. That's one reason I can think of. Sounds like "fighting words".


If those are "fighting words" the president has been dishing out threats to Americans for a while now...or is it only ok for him to issue threats to us??



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Logarock
 



Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".


And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".

It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.

So yes...we can regulate the sale and ownership requirements for guns without even having to talk about the 2nd.

actually, if you look closely ... no, the government can't.
what they can and should do is PROVIDE arms to us at their expense, not ours ... that is what it says, (well-regulated militia) even though you wouldn't like it.

besides, our tax dollars should be providing OUR arms, not those of the terrorists, rebels and foreign dicatorships ... that alone is evidence of treason by the US government.
(giving aid and comfort to our enemies)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


I see what happened.

I did not advocate violent protest against unjust laws. I said there are people who will react that way. I do not condone the actions, I just know they will occur. There are people that owned slaves in America. I do not condone nor do I advocate such actions.

Forces in our nation are coalescing into separate camps on this issue. Those that want to commit violence to keep rights, those that want to commit acts of violence to take rights away, and those that want to change laws in a sensible way (and just saying "common sense" over and over does not make anything common sense).

I belong to the camp that believes in fighting for what is right, in a non-violent use of the term. I am vocal about not bowing down to the gun grabbers, just as I am vocal about placing innocent people at risk through violence.

This video was made for the "defender" camp. Those that will refuse to be disarmed. That is a simple fact and I do not believe I have advocated for them in any post I have made on ATS or anywhere else.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



actually, if you look closely ... no, the government can't.
what they can and should do is PROVIDE arms to us at their expense, not ours ... that is what it says, (well-regulated militia) even though you wouldn't like it.


They do, it's called the National Guard...go join it. That is the official State militia.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Honor93
 



actually, if you look closely ... no, the government can't.
what they can and should do is PROVIDE arms to us at their expense, not ours ... that is what it says, (well-regulated militia) even though you wouldn't like it.


They do, it's called the National Guard...go join it. That is the official State militia.


not quite but you are free to 'think so'.
and if they are ... tell me then why they assaulted unarmed students at Kent State, years ago.

also, if you would, explain what was their role in Wounded Knee ??
do tell, which Free State were they defending ??



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I support the message of the commercial 100% (a response to a threat is called a defense, folks, not a threat. This is a direct response to a threat from the feds, NOT an aggressive statement of threat against them.) That said, the song in the commercial is douche chill inducing. I'm pure blooded redneck/hick/stomp whatever, and can honestly say that song didn't even appeal to my demographic. It is almost as bad as that Diamond Gusset jeans song.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 




not quite but you are free to 'think so'.
and if they are ... tell me then why they assaulted unarmed students at Kent State, years ago.

also, if you would, explain what was their role in Wounded Knee ??
do tell, which Free State were they defending ??


Just because you don't agree with their actions doesn't mean they aren't the official State militia.

And they did all those things because they were ordered to by their commander...the Governor of those States.

For a person claiming to know alot....you sure don't know much.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



I support the message of the commercial 100% (a response to a threat is called a defense, folks, not a threat. This is a direct response to a threat from the feds, NOT an aggressive statement of threat against them.)


Please provide a source that shows Obama threatening to take away your guns.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


What's there to say? As a private organization its up to Clear channel to decide whether they wish to allow the commercial, and they decided not to. They probably had their reasons. They are a conservative network (I believe they own the Rush Limbaugh and Hannity shows) but this commercial was even too extreme for their tastes I guess.

Maybe another network will pick it up?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



I support the message of the commercial 100% (a response to a threat is called a defense, folks, not a threat. This is a direct response to a threat from the feds, NOT an aggressive statement of threat against them.)


Please provide a source that shows Obama threatening to take away your guns.



Straight From the Horse's (Mouth)
From the "Pass a new, stronger assault weapons ban" tab:

The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.


Direct response to a direct question, if you wish I can also roll out the gyrations surrounding magazine capacity infringements, ammunition controls, registration mandates that are not only violations of privacy rights but also have historically been precursors to gun grabs and disarmament policies worldwide.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 

your narrow view of the 'militia' doesn't make it correct.
nice try though.

the 'militia' includes 'every free person capable' ... always has been, and should remain so.
it is not necessary to 'join a club'.

and yes, if you knew the Constitution like you claim to, you would already know this.
all that was ever prescribed as defense for this nation was a Navy and state militias.

a standing army was never intended.
as a matter of fact, future generations were specifically cautioned against it.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Logarock
 



Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".


And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".

It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.

So yes...we can regulate the sale and ownership requirements for guns without even having to talk about the 2nd.



This is the first time one of your posts has had me sit up in my seat saying: "wuuuuut?!"

So, curiosity has gotten the better of me.

What do you mean "we can regulate the sale and ownership...."?

Do you work for this administration, or, fed.gov? If not, why on Earth would you write "we"?





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join