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.

 

Obama starts his move against Firearms...as he said he would.

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Alien... have you missed the numerous and frequent statements OUR OWN PRESIDENT has made about his full intention to go around Congress if they won't do what he likes? Have you not noticed Biden, the 2nd most powerful man in the U.S. system for the executive side, saying they WOULD get this done whether Congress cooperated or not?

I'm not in need of proving anything, on any level here. In this case, those being accused aren't simply failing to deny it, they proudly state the fact openly and often.




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Welcome to a country that supports the rights of killing unborn children but want to strip away our Constitutional rights.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by muse7
I don't know why he didn't do this sooner.

I agree with both of the actions, the one that closes the loophole where people that are disallowed are able to register their guns to a corporation is a no brainer


Yo?

Did the Aruora Shooter,Sandy Hook shooter, Zimmerman, and every other shooter in the last 5 years

USE GUN TRUSTS ?


Nope...You want to talk about how to keep guns out the hands of those types? The wacko and unqualified contingent? Cuz we tried that and the NRA said hell no.

So I am Ok with making gun-running of military grade weapons just a little more accountable.


Originally posted by neo96
I know some people just hate corporations no matter the cause, but this is PUNISHING people who haven't done jack snip to anyone.


I am confused how holding blind trusts to the same standards (criminal background checks) as individual gun owners is "PUNISHING" anyone? Unless of course the blind trust is owned by criminals?
edit on 29-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by muse7
I don't know why he didn't do this sooner.

I agree with both of the actions, the one that closes the loophole where people that are disallowed are able to register their guns to a corporation is a no brainer


Yo?

Did the Aruora Shooter,Sandy Hook shooter, Zimmerman, and every other shooter in the last 5 years

USE GUN TRUSTS ?

I know some people just hate corporations no matter the cause, but this is PUNISHING people who haven't done jack snip to anyone.

Support holding the entire country accountable for actions they did not commit ?

Really ?
edit on 29-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Is that what we should use as our basis for gun laws? Should we only make things illegal after a tragedy?

That isn't how things should work, we should look at potential issues along with actually issues.

Both of these are common sense measures, corporations shouldn't "own" guns and it is well within the governments right to approve what Military equipment can be resold to the public.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I'm not addressing Wrabbits OP because he's laid it out fair & square
in usual Wrabbit fashion.

But in general....
Why is it when Gov Christie does this it it's simply a "Gun Bill" ?
And when Obama does the very same actions, it's an "Anti Gun Bill?"

Back ground checks are hardly gun confiscations but the reaction
when it's Obama idea is the same.
edit on 29-8-2013 by sealing because: grammar



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Where does that trunk full of guns come from?


They didn't come from someone getting a background check now did they?

They didn't come from a gun trust now did they ?




Besides...after the tonnage of NRA rhetoric about how guns stop crime and defend homes...do you really want to argue that all the crime guns used in the USA come from gun owners who failed to secure thier guns and were victims of succesful crimes?


My guns have never been used to kill, or harm anyone else. Neither have millions of other gun owners.

What part of that are some people missing ?

Really WHAT PART ?

Really trying to hold me and others accountable for this that we had nothing to do with ?

I guess so which is what 'gun control' advocates always try to do.




Is it possible that gun-runners use blind trusts to hide thier dealings and identities?


Dunno wasn't there neither was you or Obama.




Or that the cash-and-carry vendors at gun-shows set up blind trust entities to sell Military Surplus weapons?


Military surplus weapons were not used at any of the national shootings either.




Hell the EO doesn't even ban Gun-Running via blind trust...it simply asks those folks hiding behind the trust to come forward and have thier background checked to make sure they are not known criminals


Why should I care ?

Really ?

Checked out the people who are going to be privy to all your healthcare information ?

They don't have to get background checks so I really DO NOT CARE.

Really trolling hard here eh?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by BritofTexas
 

That ain't spin.
That is truth.
I don't support government fascism unlike some.


Not to sure about that last line. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Please tell me how either of the two measures in the OPs article will stop my Grandmother leaving me her favorite Blunderbuss?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Nope...You want to talk about how to keep guns out the hands of those types? The wacko and unqualified contingent? Cuz we tried that and the NRA said hell no


Then someone is TROLLING


the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of the cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn


What does that say?

WHAT ?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Alien... have you missed the numerous and frequent statements OUR OWN PRESIDENT has made about his full intention to go around Congress if they won't do what he likes? Have you not noticed Biden, the 2nd most powerful man in the U.S. system for the executive side, saying they WOULD get this done whether Congress cooperated or not?

I'm not in need of proving anything, on any level here. In this case, those being accused aren't simply failing to deny it, they proudly state the fact openly and often.


No, I haven't missed those statements, in fact I fully support them.

He should use every legal measure at his disposal to do what Congress is refusing to do.

You are in need of proving that what he is doing is illegal. The President can enforce the law, if you think he has stepped outside his authority, point it out and prove it.

Like I said, I have no problem if the SCOTUS decides that this is outside of his power...that is how our system actually works and I support how our system works.

I support our system, do you?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Oh, cheer up there.... It was only several hundred thousand old M-1 Garands and Carbines Obama had trashed and destroyed as one of his very early moves against guns. The program that has stood for generations to redistribute those guns (WE PAID FOR as taxpayers..) has stood and served citizens for generations. How many crimes are committed with 30-06 caliber M-1's or the smaller carbines???

How many criminals would even FIRE a Garand a second time?? You'd sucker them to take the punch once, because they'd be too stupid to guess it might not feel good. I seriously doubt some punky gang banger would do it a second time. They love little toys like Uzi's and Tec-9's or popguns like the Saturday night special level 9mm's (No offense to those who love some of those bargain brands. )


As far as Fonda? I still like the story where Ted Turner was thrown out of a Montana Restaurant because he had the poor judgement to bring that traitorous piece of human trash in with him. I have in-laws near where that happened who still laugh about it. It's a shame she wasn't arrested on the tarmac and summarily shot upon arrival back from Hanoi. She deserved absolutely nothing less for her conduct and harm to POW's while there.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Your post is full of irony!

There you are crying about how we are supporting the "killing of unborn childern." yet you support our streets being flooded with assault rifles and large caliber rifles that have led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent LIVING children, parents, and friends.




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 





Is that what we should use as our basis for gun laws? Should we only make things illegal after a tragedy?


Why ?

We already have laws against murder, and hurting people, that doesn't stop it.

So why are we banning things ?

That doesn't stop it either.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


What do you think this E.O will do to benefit the American people?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by AlienScience
 





Is that what we should use as our basis for gun laws? Should we only make things illegal after a tragedy?


Why ?

We already have laws against murder, and hurting people, that doesn't stop it.

So why are we banning things ?

That doesn't stop it either.


You are the one that brought it up, that this doesn't relate to Sandy Hook.

I'm fine with Obama issuing these out of the blue with nothing but common sense to back him up.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


You can get a full auto weapon for a few thousand. 3 or 4 usually.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by BritofTexas
 

That ain't spin.
That is truth.
I don't support government fascism unlike some.


Not to sure about that last line. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Please tell me how either of the two measures in the OPs article will stop my Grandmother leaving me her favorite Blunderbuss?


Because if that blunderbuss has been deemed to be 'legal' first off then 'Granny' can leave it to you,

But You can not pick it up or take possession of it without getting government's permission first.

Don't your a felon.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by AlienScience
 





Is that what we should use as our basis for gun laws? Should we only make things illegal after a tragedy?


Why ?

We already have laws against murder, and hurting people, that doesn't stop it.

So why are we banning things ?

That doesn't stop it either.


You are the one that brought it up, that this doesn't relate to Sandy Hook.

I'm fine with Obama issuing these out of the blue with nothing but common sense to back him up.



Was any of the shooters felons ? NO.

Did any of the shooters who military surplus weapons ? No.

Did any of the shooters use gun trusts ? No,

Sandy Hook was the justification of those EO's.

Missed that ?

Just to blindly support what ever the Potus does ?

Geez.
edit on 29-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by AlienScience
 


What do you think this E.O will do to benefit the American people?


In my personal opinion, anything that makes the background check system more robust will help the American people. Also, anytime we can keep military style weapons out of the public, that is a win for the public as well.

I'm not against guns, have all the hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns that you want. But don't cry about background checks, permits, or wanting to own a mini-gun. I'm thinking about buying a gun in the next year or so, I have no problem going through the background check process...I wouldn't even mind getting re-checked every two years.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You seem to be having a conversation with yourself and talking in a circle.

Please continue, you don't need me for this.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Chicago! Nuff said.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join