DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

page: 7
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 

First it is "assault weapons" (with the scary black accessories); then it will be the base semi-automatics as they are "just as dangerous as the weapons that were banned because of their cosmetic features"'; then it will be handguns because of their concealability and actual use in crime (unlike "assault rifles"); then it will be high powered hunting rifles (ie bolt action) because they are favored by snipers for their accuracy and range; and finally it will be shotguns because they can shoot the equivilane of a whole "clip" (30 rd mag) of .30 calibre buckshot in one shot! OMG.


That's the plan. After all, a nice 30 caliber hunting rifle and a sniper rifle are the same thing and a .30-06 can penetrate most body armor.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I'm not sure why they couldn't suggest recommendations that can be implemented within the already existing legal framework.

I mean, if all we're doing is just throwing out ideas, why not suggest designing some Judge Dredd guns that self-destruct if unauthorized persons attempt to use them?

Either they are not particularly clever or familiar with the law, or they have an agenda that they want to sell.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
I'm not sure why they couldn't suggest recommendations that can be implemented within the already existing legal framework.

I mean, if all we're doing is just throwing out ideas, why not suggest designing some Judge Dredd guns that self-destruct if unauthorized persons attempt to use them?

Either they are not particularly clever or familiar with the law, or they have an agenda that they want to sell.


People don't want Judge Dredd guns. That's a tool by the elite to keep weapons in the hands of their minions.

The problem comes from the Federal Government's tendency to ignore the existing legal framework by "interpreting" the constitution instead of following it.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


I didn't say it was something I endorsed, but at least it would fit the criteria better than a carpet ban.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


I didn't say it was something I endorsed, but at least it would fit the criteria better than a carpet ban.


A carpet ban is what they want, though. The goal is not to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms - the goal is to get them out of the hands of the law-abiding people who would object with violence to the next phase that they have planned for us.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


what an amazingly ignorant way to live your life. no one expects you to uncritically accept information from a biased source-which is virtually every source of information including yourself, but you should at least consider and research what is unfolding. many of the worlds important discoveries have come from the fringes that no mainstream source would ever consider as legitimate. until the overwhelming evidence forced them to admit it, or face total irrelevance. much like what alt news is doing to the MSM. some of the most important things you can learn don't come from the safety of group thinking friends, but from clinched fisted opponents who drag you out of your comfort zone and force you to evaluate and then stand up for what you hold as true.

2 Billion rounds of militarily useless hollow point pistol ammunition + DHS armored vehicles + drones. DHS + TSA + non judicial killing of American citizens by EO + NDAA + warrantless surveillence + CISPA + attempts to disarm citizens

At what point are you willing to accept the idea that the government may not have the best of intentions?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Its not like we live in the pre-internet era where you either watched tv or listened to the radio. Today people can research things for themselves and get real answers.


Yes, but what answers are those? I've known people who have gone to many Drs in search of a good one, who to them meant a Dr. who agreed with and/or prescribed the medications that they wanted. None of the other Drs knew what they were talking about, because the pt. had already self Dx'ed and were basically looking for a Dr who agreed with them - instead of reality.

Same thing with internet researching now because it has become so wealthy with a plethora of information, not all of which is factual. If one person finds something to be fact, another can find something to refute their information easy enough - so we are always in disagreement unless we are like minded.

But you're right, we can find real answers..it just depends on who we are discussing our talking points with.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by robobbob
reply to post by Ghost375
 


what an amazingly ignorant way to live your life. no one expects you to uncritically accept information from a biased source-which is virtually every source of information including yourself, but you should at least consider and research what is unfolding. many of the worlds important discoveries have come from the fringes that no mainstream source would ever consider as legitimate. until the overwhelming evidence forced them to admit it, or face total irrelevance. much like what alt news is doing to the MSM. some of the most important things you can learn don't come from the safety of group thinking friends, but from clinched fisted opponents who drag you out of your comfort zone and force you to evaluate and then stand up for what you hold as true.

2 Billion rounds of militarily useless hollow point pistol ammunition + DHS armored vehicles + drones. DHS + TSA + non judicial killing of American citizens by EO + NDAA + warrantless surveillence + CISPA + attempts to disarm citizens

At what point are you willing to accept the idea that the government may not have the best of intentions?


For some folks, that realization won't come until they are bound and kneeling in front of the pit of corpses that used to be their neighborhood. I'm sure that a few, even then, won't realize what has been going on in front of their very eyes.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Hopechest
Member
Registered: 9-2-2013
Location: Arizona
Mood: God Complex
Member is offline.

You sound so certain
of what you are preaching.
Where do you get your fact
that it is just a research arm of the DOJ?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Hopechest
Member
Registered: 9-2-2013
Location: Arizona
Mood: God Complex
Member is offline.

You sound so certain
of what you are preaching.
Where do you get your fact
that it is just a research arm of the DOJ?


It's just Obamabot damage control. They are all over the internet these days.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Why would their recommendation, their suggestion be one of violating the 2nd Amendment?

Why?

Because maybe they're convinced that public opinion will by now
let the administration get away with it. "Maybe we can..."
I smell another large ammo purchase soon too; by both sectors.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by derfreebie

Originally posted by beezzer
Why would their recommendation, their suggestion be one of violating the 2nd Amendment?

Why?

Because maybe they're convinced that public opinion will by now
let the administration get away with it. "Maybe we can..."
I smell another large ammo purchase soon too; by both sectors.


First they need a couple more false flags with the attendant media blitzkrieg.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Why would they need too? I mean if I were to prove the nonexistence of constant crap the right was spewing out I'd need to appoint a committee to do so which would be wasting money. I'm sure this is about Obama hating white people as well or anything else fox news is spitting out as of late. O yeah gays are gonna cause the next apocalypse too. Just get me exactly where this came from and prove to me it's real, otherwise it's just hoaxed BS like much of this gun debate stuff as of late.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


So prove that it's real, it lacks a national seal and anything to actually make it credible. If you want a document to be 'official' it needs to be notarized as far as I can tell this document isn't. So I'm waiting for how you can prove to me this is 'real' other then the fact that it's there and looks like someone made it on MSWord.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
So I'm waiting for how you can prove to me this is 'real' other then the fact that it's there and looks like someone made it on MSWord.


So the federal Govt doesn't use MSWord???

You truly are clueless.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


So prove that it's real, it lacks a national seal and anything to actually make it credible. If you want a document to be 'official' it needs to be notarized as far as I can tell this document isn't. So I'm waiting for how you can prove to me this is 'real' other then the fact that it's there and looks like someone made it on MSWord.


I guess you overlooked the part where they are not denying the fact that it is indeed official huh?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Didn't say they didn't I stated that I could make the same. I did although say that "official" documents require a notary seal and a signature. Two of which this "official" document is lacking.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


O really then why is everyone here excluding yourself taking it as such? I read your posts and you did comment on the fact that it isn't "actually" "official", or can't be proven to be so but many here aren't doing the same.
edit on 26-2-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


Your insinuation is that of, if they used MSWord, then it is a fake.

Also, do you really have any clue as to internal memos within Govt agencies?
Me thinks not.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


O really then why is everyone here excluding yourself taking it as such? I read your posts and you did comment on the fact that it isn't "actually" "official", or can't be proven to be so but many here aren't doing the same.
edit on 26-2-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)


I had to go back and read my posts...where exactly did I say that that it isn't "actuallly official"? The closest I come to saying that is that when it comes to Alex Jones you need to verify the information elsewhere as well sometimes. Having said that if you take everything of late into account this thing that may be innocent starts to look not so innocent in my opinion. Alex Jones is not the only source of information on this, they are not denying the fact that it is real, which means it is in all probability most likely real.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join