Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), "'assault' weapon bans are just the beginning".

page: 2
45
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The true issue is the liberal bloodlust that only hides behind a thin veneer of human compassion. Secretly, every liberal thirsts for the opportunity to wield power over their fellow man. At the core of every liberal issue is the desire to implement a government that forces others to their will.

Liberals, while often better educated (education does not mean smart), lack the physical prowess of the conservative. Think of the liberal males you personally know: thin, effeminate, and pandering to be accepted.

This is the center of the liberal pro-crime argument: first, they want others to live in their world of fear and second, despise the idea of anybody having the ability to resist their quest for power.




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

There has always been a segment of the people wanting to ban guns, how is today any different?

I would actually say its getting better since the Supreme Court has issued a number of key rulings protecting the right to own guns that didn't exist before.

Here is a list of gun control legislation, and anti-gun control legislation to show that today is no different than past gun-grab attempts.


1791
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." gains final ratification.

1837
Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.

1865
In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt "black codes" which, among other things, forbid black persons from possessing firearms.

1871
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians' marksmanship in preparation for war.

1927
Congress passes a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.

1934
The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.

1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 - "...was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence." -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms The Act regulates imported guns, expands the gun-dealer licensing and record keeping requirements, and places specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of persons banned from buying guns is expanded to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.

1972
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is created listing as part of its mission the control of illegal use and sale of firearms and the enforcement of Federal firearms laws. ATF issues firearms licenses and conducts firearms licensee qualification and compliance inspections.

1977
The District of Columbia enacts an anti-handgun law which also requires registration of all rifles and shotguns within the District of Columbia.

1986
The Armed Career Criminal Act (Public Law 99-570) increases penalties for possession of firearms by persons not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986.

The Firearms Owners Protection Act (Public Law 99-308) relaxes some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales and establishes mandatory penalties for use of firearms during the commission of a crime.

The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) bans possession of "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

1989
California bans the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons following the massacre of five children on a Stockton, CA school playground.

1990
The Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. "Gun-free school zones" are established carrying specific penalties for violations.

1994
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. (ATF's Brady Law web site.)

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) bans all sale, manufacture, importation, or possession of a number of specific types of assault weapons.

1997
The Supreme Court, in the case of Printz v. United States, declares the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional.

The Florida Supreme Court upholds a jury's $11.5 million verdict against Kmart for selling a gun to and intoxicated man who used the gun to shoot his estranged girlfriend.

Major American gun manufacturers voluntarily agree to include child safety trigger devices on all new handguns.

usgovinfo.about.com...



Interesting. It appears that all the gun laws have already been passed to prevent the wrong people from obtaining guns, and dangerous(er) weapons prohibited, so all should be well. I guess she and others like her believe that passing more and more laws will make wanna be murderers have a change of heart.
edit on 12-3-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Can't say I'm at all surprised. Illinois has the most back stabbing, low life, lying, cheating, scum of the earth politicians. "Leaders" who couldn't care less about the wishes of the people they represent and only want to protect their own power. I hope as many as possible post this to their Facebook page or find a way to plaster her face across the internet. She and the others like her, need to be exposed for what they are.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 

How do you eat a tough steak? You may marinate it a long time and cook it slow (gun control sentiment) but when you go to eat it when it is ready (go after specific classes of guns) you take one bite at a time......



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Finally our bumbling cousins across the pond are moving out of the 1800's and into the 21st century.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I'd really love to hear about that time when someone actually shot 2-3 robbers or burglars (And pls nothing out of the papers or what you heard from a friends neighbors cousin, named Joe). All I hear is:

-if they came to MY house I...
-if I saw someone with a gun I would...
-if I had a gun with with me it totally would help that guy over there getting kicked...

The rest of the time people are afraid of maybe getting in a situation where they actually have to us their gun against another human in self defense and I don't mean shooting someone over a heated discussion while beeing drunk, or because he dindn't look at me the right way.

Why are you so afraid? The government is going to kill you? The bad guys are coming... maybe?

I don't have anything against guns, but I'd endorse a nation wide register and high taxes for owning them. You also should have a national license to carry one, which also should'nt be easy to obtain.

cheers


edit on 13-3-2013 by pjfry because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2013 by pjfry because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Nazi's did the same thing disarmed everyone. Then they ran all the Jews to their deaths. Corralled them down a channel to a large open pit to shoot them all. You don't need guns! The cops will make you safe! We want you to feel safe! Yeah uh huh as they bulldoze your dead body into a mass grave. Nothing like a keystone cop to make you feel safe.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pjfry
 

I don't carry them without a concealled carry and not a rifle, they are at home.
We can't trust them not to confiscate after registration so ,no,no licence either.
The already flawed tax system doesn't need any more added to it ,what are you from England?



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sean
 


C'mon you really compare Germany from 1933-45 to the USA in 2013?
The Nazis also build Highways and Railroads, so you should really look out if your government has any plans on improving the infrastructure, because, you know, the Nazis did it, too.

Why even bring them up in the first place?

www.nytimes.com...

16 year old kid got shot by the police, because he had a revolver in his hand. When you look at it, some question might rise. Why did he have a damn gun? Why did the police officers kill him?

I bet he carried one, because his neighborhood wasn't safe and he wanted to protect himself against someone carrying a firearm. So when the Police stopped him, because the neigborhood wasn't safe and they wanted to check search for drugs or firearms, he took it out and they shot him, because they were afraid he would shoot them in the first place.

Let's assume guns weren't THAT easy to get and he didn't have one with him, also the Police woulnd't assume that a kid carries a gun, would this 16 year old dude still live? I bet he would.
What do you say



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pjfry
 


More distraction, interruption, and deflection by a liberal.

The liberal fails to recognize that when a gangbanger gets gunned down, by the police or by another gang, society is not poorer for it. Nor does the liberal realize their ideology is responsible for the rise of urban gangs when they got on their knees in gleeful worship of LBJ's "Great Society" and its urban islands called "projects". Coupled with the liberal celebration of diversity, rather than demand contributions to American cultural output, turn their urban islands into disenfranchised ethnic enclaves.

The liberal points at guns and shrieks at all the murder and mayhem caused by them, but never asks the question about why those who participate in a culture of violence opt to do so to begin with. Honest answers, and the orgins of the rot, point firmly to the liberals ideological forebearers.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
The true issue is the liberal bloodlust that only hides behind a thin veneer of human compassion. Secretly, every liberal thirsts for the opportunity to wield power over their fellow man. At the core of every liberal issue is the desire to implement a government that forces others to their will.


Bloodlust?? Why do you use the wrong word here? Liberals simply want more control over society than conservatives do. They don't believe society should be free to do as it pleases. Sometimes it is for good reasons and sometimes it is for bad reasons. Isn't the military, police, fire department, every branch of government, business all structured to achieve efficiency via controls? Only the degree of controls vary.

Bloodlust would be much more appropriate for communist dictators who have nearly zero tolerance for diversity.


Liberals, while often better educated (education does not mean smart), lack the physical prowess of the conservative. Think of the liberal males you personally know: thin, effeminate, and pandering to be accepted.

This is the center of the liberal pro-crime argument: first, they want others to live in their world of fear and second, despise the idea of anybody having the ability to resist their quest for power.



Live in their world of fear? Resist their quest for power?


You are making some really horrible statements with little basis in fact. Secondly generalising with broad strokes is exactly what is wrong with america because it creates polarity. Today liberals have to stick with the democratic agenda and conservatives have to stick to the republican agenda. There is very little room for being different. It has become a one size fits all shoe! America NEEDS many parties, at least 3-4 competing during election periods.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by pjfry
 


More distraction, interruption, and deflection by a liberal.

The liberal fails to recognize that when a gangbanger gets gunned down, by the police or by another gang, society is not poorer for it. Nor does the liberal realize their ideology is responsible for the rise of urban gangs when they got on their knees in gleeful worship of LBJ's "Great Society" and its urban islands called "projects". Coupled with the liberal celebration of diversity, rather than demand contributions to American cultural output, turn their urban islands into disenfranchised ethnic enclaves.

The liberal points at guns and shrieks at all the murder and mayhem caused by them, but never asks the question about why those who participate in a culture of violence opt to do so to begin with. Honest answers, and the orgins of the rot, point firmly to the liberals ideological forebearers.


Lets just say there are liberals and progressives(such as myself, which is even more left than liberals) that absolutely despise the hypocrisy of some folks like feinstein or this congresswomen from illinois. First because the controls they want go way too far and secondly because they are using false flags to achieve their evil agenda.

Both the democrats and republicans are so corrupt they are indeed in fact EVIL! The 100 year duopoly of D and R has created the conditions of totalitarianism, big and wasteful government, no accountability worth mentioning, taxation without representation.

You are not going to solve any problems by exchanging the democrat tyrant with a republican tyrant.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



@6:30


Perhaps you are victim of this yourself.

Some would say it's all in the cards.

Welcome to ATS.
edit on 13-3-2013 by GreenGlassDoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Bump
2nd
3rd
Stop the gun grabbing agenda! Argument from everyone that doesn't believe in 2nd amendment has been null so this doesn't require an argument or discussion.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


People can claim anything they want but it does not necessarily make it true. Yes there is an illuminati conspiracy but it has nothing to do with atheist communism. It has everything to do with luciferian masonry. Luciferianism is simply the high brow word for satanism. All mainstream religions I know of are a farce anyway. Satanism has always existed but it is an underground movement practiced by elites in occult rituals and by amateur kids.

Either you are a satanist, a follower of god, an agnostic or an atheist. Which are you? Not that I care!

Commie phobia is practiced by the same people who fear islam. Same package of lies. It gets old.


And why is the UN, led by america bashing North Korea constantly? Why is Kim Jr threatning to strike america and south korea with nukes? I thought america was turning communist according to some folks. Please just stop, not really in a good mood for disinfo lately!



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ObjectZero
 


Who's the child in your analogy? By the way you put it, it sounds like the people are the “child” and the bureaucracy is the “parent”. Could you evince your view?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Off the top of my head there are at least a half-dozen things wrong with what you posted. I've learned that I cannot explain to a liberal any sort of truth, as they still suffer from the disease and cannot see the flaws in their own ways.

Many years ago I was a strong democrat. I believed in all the liberal nonsense. Then I reallly sat down and sorted my beliefs out and tried to see the logical conclusion of where my beliefs were going. The answer was and is towards communism.

At first I was in denial, as there was no way that I could have been tricked so badly. Then I tried to reason with it, that maybe communism wasn't so bad or had been demonized. None of that is true. Communim is on a gloabl goal to subvert the world, then shoot, deport, or reeducate the remaining people.

You can try to pretend to be something else. Call yourself a progressive or whatever. That is the illness here. The inability for the liberal to see what master he is working for.

Until you recognize who your master is, you cannot see the truth for what it is.

I hope you get well.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


If the UN is left as you imply, then why are they sanctioning North Korea to the point of Kim Jong Un wanting to nuke south korea and the usa? And what about the sanctions against cuba? They even tried to kill Fidel Castro.

I suggest you stop playing the hyperbole game and come down to reality land. Houston to GreenGlassDoor, do you copy???



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Do you have a learning disability or simply attempting the typical liberal modus operandi of interruption and distraction?

You cannot infer and I cannot imply anything about a subject on which I did not speak. Sadly, in your fetid liberal mind fear bubbles to the surface when your intended victim does not follow your intended script, and like a poorly written computer program the liberal will continue on as if the script had been followed. This is why people become so frustrated when dealing with liberals.

Please, at least attempt to follow the conversation in the future.





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join