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: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 



So again I will ask the question how do all these gun laws protect the people?




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The felons already have the guns so why make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect ourselves.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The exaggeration and hypocrisy is seen when the POTUS is not from your party.




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Depends who you ask. I've been against all those tyrants from the beginning.

Fair-weather partisans have no convictions.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
Criminals do not own registered guns!


This is as misleading as Neo's claim the less than 1% of criminals purchased thier gun at a gun show.

Let's back up for a moment and engage some rational thinking.

Criminals do not own thier own gun-manufacturing corporations...

So...Each and every gun originates on the manufacturing floor...and then what?

Shipped to a vendor...

Then what? How does it end up in the hands of Criminals if less than 10% of crime guns are "stolen"...and BTW a percentage of those "stolen guns" were stolen from folks that had them illegally already.

So where does the 90+% of crime guns originate? Why is that a hard question?

Through Gun-Show Loop-Holes, Through Straw Purchases and yes through LLC's set up to hide identitites of gun-runners.

Otherwise, while less than 1% of criminals bought guns at gun shows...The Question should be did the person that sold them that gun out of the back of thier trunk, buy those guns at a Gun-Show via the loophole.

Or...when you claim that Criminals don't own registered guns...who did they buy that gun from? Straw purchaser?

90% of Crime guns make thier way from manufacturing floor to criminals through sales.

Assuming Gun Manufacturers don't ship to criminals direct....How is that gun passing hands?

The Anti-Regulation crowd always begins the argument as if the gun just appeared in the criminals hand magically.


edit on 29-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Beg to differ the REAL hypocrisy can be see in Syria, in Meixco, hell the entire middle east, and central America.

Deny weapons to us,and then turn around and gives the very same weapons, and worse to any 2 bit dictator,terrorist, and drug cartel. Anyone they have 'deemed' to be 'friendly'.

By what rights do the gun control proponents have to tell me what I can' or can't own ?

There is the REAL HYPOCRISY.

A belief that has resulted in the police,the military, and the criminal ALL being better armed than the average Joe American.

If that is the sum of 'Good government' then people DESERVE the police state they live under. Because gun control is the epitome of a police state.

Only they have guns.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Through Gun-Show Loop-Holes, Through Straw Purchases and yes through LLC's set up to hide identitites of purchasers.


Straw purchases ?

Oh like government sanctioned straw purchases vis a vis Fast and Furious mean like that ?


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



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I really don't have a political party(but my value do align with liberal attitude) and i have my own gray area with guns(mainly for home use)... but when i see things get exaggerated because they hate the current admin just irks me, because people before have done the same thing.

It just ends with ______ coming to take ours guns!



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


I agree with all of them.... just like how previous admins have done, this current guy is no special.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by neo96
 


I agree with all of them.... just like how previous admins have done, this current guy is no special.



You agree with government fascism ?

Seig heil.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


No i agree that there is corruption from all the type of presidents, Obama is no special that has to stand out. Then it would be party bias kicking in.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


The reason Obama stands out is because he will use any tragedy to try and come up with some stupid new gun law.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
The exaggeration and hypocrisy is seen when the POTUS is not from your party.



What you're doing there is making the point that all politicians are scumbags and none can be trusted. however they appear. Whatever they say. Whatever they promise. None can be trusted

On that? Well now... I can't think of a single thing to disagree on. Not even marginally.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Through Gun-Show Loop-Holes, Through Straw Purchases and yes through LLC's set up to hide identitites of purchasers.


Straw purchases ?



Yah...Straw purchasers, gun dealers etc.

Illegal gun market thrives in Minnesota; prosecution rare, penalties light



In a private room at a used car lot in Woodbury, Steven Novick sold guns out of a duffel bag. He didn’t have a license, and he didn’t check the background of his customers.

Federal agents had warned him in the past to stop, but he kept selling firearms. One of the guns he sold showed up at the scene of a drive-by shooting in St. Paul, another at a drug arrest in White Bear Lake. Finally, in 2007, the feds shut him down. His punishment: probation

....

[and here]

In 2000, three men were indicted for dealing in firearms without a license. An ATF report said that the men had sold 1,100 new and secondhand firearms, many to youths at gun shows.

They pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. The men were sentenced to a year’s probation, a $1,500 fine and 100 hours of community service.

...

His defense hinged on the federal law’s definition of an arms dealer. Federal law allows private citizens to sell their personal guns without conducting background checks, but there’s no stated limit to the number of guns that person may sell before they’re considered an arms dealer.

To put limitations on the sales, some states require that all gun sales be processed through a licensed dealer, or limit the number of guns an unlicensed person can sell. That’s not the case in Minnesota.

www.startribune.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


There is NO DEBATE to be had

Here:

I do love the lengths that some go to defending Government fascism.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


This could probably be solved much more effectively and within the values of our nation and legal system by making the penalty for possessing a weapon as a person prohibited (Felon.. Domestic Violence... Etc) so draconian, it does one of two things ..and I don't care which, honestly.

1. It deters people from being armed criminals.

2. It puts armed criminals in prison long enough to be no threat by old age alone by the time they ever walk in free air again.

There is a lot of fair argument against some of our laws and mandatory minimums like narcotics. Not to start a side topic..but one example where draconian laws are absurd. Illegal possession of a firearm VERY rarely means anything innocent or explainable beyond the criminal.

Throw the book at them so hard, they're knocked clean off their chair by it. However, the over-nanny treatment of 300 million people to address the issues of a very small minority of scumbag criminals is the difference between the world view of Personal Responsibility and absolute consequence to action vs. a world where first, last and often only measures seem to be about prevention by total lack of ability to do wrong ...not by burying those who DO choose to commit wrong.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


What does this prove? Its okay when the government want to sell guns illegally to other criminals but not okay when civilians do it its wrong talk about hypocrisy.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 
If I may.... let me through this out there.... US declares war on Syria , this act would let he Admin become the jack boots we all fear , thus they will come knocking on doors to confiscate rifles, pistols, ammo, powder bullets, or if an other 9/11 takes place... Now whom will this effect??? as if one has to ask.... The legal gun er weapons owner it will not harm the outlawed illegal owner poser of a fire arm, for they are not known, why they are not on a buyers owners list. Oh yes there is talk of privet sales "if you say you sold and have no proof to whom you sold it too" or sold it to a felon you go to jail any way for not providing the weapon in question, privet sales are going to be under fire.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


There is a tendency to back away from addressing problems with solutions. The solution to crime is more guns, not less. There is no evidence to the contrary in aggregate.

usfinancepost.com...

There is no utility in attempting to slow down the removal of our constitutional rights. I think this is why so many of us are disgusted by our "representatives" not turning around the debate.

When someone says that you should have less of a right to free speech, we should argue for more free speech.

Each time an inane argument against any of our carefully composed rights is put forth, we should expand the promotion of those rights.

Any one care to disagree with this?

edit on 29-8-2013 by greencmp because: typo

edit on 29-8-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by Indigo5
 


What does this prove? Its okay when the government want to sell guns illegally to other criminals but not okay when civilians do it its wrong talk about hypocrisy.


It's always okay. The government puts guns to peoples heads for money, the government sells guns and drugs to criminal organizations, the government stalks people, the government harasses people, the government collects kiddy porn, the government confiscates property at will, the government decides who has what rights and when they can be practiced, the government can kidnap and smuggle human beings.

You do any of those things and the government will put you into one of its prisons.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join