It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Steven Seagall Believes a Lot of Mass Shootings, and Other Gun Problems are Engineered.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:11 PM
There is an obvious problem with gun violence in the United States.
I personally think it is a mental health issue, however we need to do something to ensure mentally unstable people do not have easy access to tools made to kill efficiently.
In most of these mass shootings, the shooters gave plenty of warning of their intentions and were ignored largely because they were outcasts.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:13 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As for why I agree with Mr. Seagal? Because the Obama administration already tried a false flag trying to blame American's right to own and bear arms for Mexican drug cartels getting their hands on weapons which we later found out through an investigation were in fact provided by the ATF with the consent of the Obama administration.

This is game changing! have a source for this don't you?.......verifiable?

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:24 PM
a reply to: olaru12

BS....Nobody is going to take our guns! If they were they would start with the firearm manufacturing, ammo, shooting sports, hunting and shooting accessories businesses. Shut down a multi billion dollar industry...get real!! In fact firearm manufacturing is on the rise, to the tune of 8 million guns a year.

That's what they thought right up until Reagan banned machines guns in the 80s

That's what they thought right up until Clinton passed the 'assualt' weapons ban in the 90s.

That's what they thought right up until Feinsteins Bills got shot the hell down

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Tell us another story.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I always liked Seagal. The earlier movies were far better, though a few of the later ones are alright, and he's been helping out police for a long time, too. Solid fellow. He's not stupid, either, and as I recall, had some background that would give him a better eye for that sort of thing.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:03 PM
It is insane how scared you people are of losing your precious guns. You realize a second civil war will occur first, right? About 1 in 10 of you would probably be fighting in it. The rest, scared.

Chill out. The mass shootings will cause nothing, Sandy Hook did not. No shooting will. I repeat. Chill. These shootings wont even make the mentally ill be treated any different. Let alone guns.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:13 PM
a reply to: Argyll

Yes it's real..not to deflect but I believe the program was concepted by the Bush admin, there was a change in power and the current admin went full on with it.
Im not saying the program was about gun control but Fast and Furious is a fact..a highly criminal fact
edit on 9-10-2015 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:14 PM

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Has anyone else noticed the pro-2nd Amendment people getting more and more militant? Several years ago advocates for gun rights would claim personal protection from "bad guys" (robbers and rapists) as their main argument.

Today? Today protection from a tyrannical government is their main argument.

Wrong, the Second Amendment right has always been about protection, including from a tyrannical government. The founding fathers explained it clearly. Only gun grabbers either don't know, or want to ignore and dismiss this fact. This is nothing new.

The right of Americans to own and bear arms has always been about protection. Protection not only from criminals, not only to have firearms for hunting, or against aggression from violent foreign invaders. But protection against a tyrannical government as well.

“And that the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
— Samuel Adams, printed in “Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” pp. 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

Convention, 1788
By Noah Webster

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... (T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

As for the claim that militia refers only to a standing army. BTW, I am not in a militia, but the truth is the truth. The claim that militia simply referred to a standing army is false.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason

edit on 9-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:24 PM

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
And as the addendum to that, if gun ownership was such a given and such an everyday part of life taken for granted, like a plough or a horse or a sword or whatever other things and tools necessary to survival, why would they have been all tht concerned with it?

I'm not being a jerk. It all just got me to really thinking.

ETA: I probably should have posted this in the other thread.

Because the British tried their own form of gun control in the U.S. back then.

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

David B. Kopel
Independence Institute; Denver University - Sturm College of Law

April 14, 2012

6 Charleston Law Review 283 (2012)


This Article chronologically reviews the British gun control which precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gun powder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gun powder, from individuals and from local governments; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

From the events of 1774-75, we can discern that import restrictions or bans on firearms or ammunition are constitutionally suspect — at least if their purpose is to disarm the public, rather than for the normal purposes of import controls (e.g., raising tax revenue, or protecting domestic industry). We can discern that broad attempts to disarm the people of a town, or to render them defenseless, are anathema to the Second Amendment; such disarmament is what the British tried to impose, and what the Americans fought a war to ensure could never again happen in America. Similarly, gun licensing laws which have the purpose or effect of only allowing a minority of the people to keep and bear arms would be unconstitutional. Finally, we see that government violence, which should always be carefully constrained and controlled, should be especially discouraged when it is used to take firearms away from peaceable citizens. Use of the military for law enforcement is particularly odious to the principles upon which the American Revolution was based.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 50

Keywords: American Revolution, gun control

JEL Classification: K19, K42, N41

It wasn't the only reason, but this was the first attempts by a government to ban the American colonist from owning firearms.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:27 PM

Over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of civilian deaths has been staggering. In Afghanistan, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the war began in 2001. In Iraq, conservative tallies place the number of civilians killed at roughly 160,500 since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Others have put the total closer to 500,000.

But as U.S. involvement in each nation has dropped off in recent years, killings much closer to home, in Mexico, have steadily, if quietly, outpaced the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.

Over the same seven-year period, slightly more than 103,000 died in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to data from the United Nations and the website Iraq Body Count.

Guns are ILLEGAL to the common citizen in Mexico without going through a bunch of red tape to get permits and licenses for one which the common citizen cannot afford.

People make a big deal about the wars in the middle east, but don't talk too much about whats going on in the country that borders us. Mexico is just one example where guns are illegal. But it doesn't really stop anybody down there. 1 out of 10 people there seem to have a gun. at least in the rural areas. but mostly a 22 or a shotgun for hunting. nothing you can protect yourselff against the cartels with.

I dont think each mass shooting like the recent one we had in OR are all DIRECTLY engineered, but with the right conditions with enough subjects, eventually one will crack and do it.

SSRI's for example, I have seen a huge correlation with shooters and these prescription drugs. I had a personal experience with a SSRI withdrawls and I am a person of very strong self control and still had many violent intrusive thoughts during the withdrawls that are not normal to me. I am normally very calm and do not want to hurt anyone.

Just some of my thoughts. I've been lurking here a while and had to chime in.

Compare gun violence in USA to Mexico and we have it easy. Just saying. Also if you go back in history, school shootings are not a new thing. They happened back in the 1800's as well. And school bombings. Google that #.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:44 PM
a reply to: Sremmos80

Did they follow this idea that every man and woman should have gun with zero infringement?

Uhh.yes. Remember as well in that day and time you obtained most of your food by hunting. Not only that , they encouraged the idea for ....wait on it.....if a tyrannical government ever took control.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:04 PM

originally posted by: Argyll

This is game changing! have a source for this don't you?.......verifiable?

I provided sources when responding to your first post. Yes, there is more.

The Obama administration, including Eric Holder, claimed not to have known about Fast and Furious. But this is false. Such a large operation, with other similar operations in other states there is no possible way the Obama administration did not know this.

As a matter of fact, even the Mexican President went on live tv to claim that Mexican drug cartels acquiring these weapons was a fault of American lax gun laws.

Mike Piccione
Editor, Guns & Gear
12:47 PM 04/10/2012

By Larry Keane, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation

During his recent visit to the White House, Mexico President Felipe Calderon renewed his call for a U.S. assault weapons ban as a solution to the drug cartel-caused violence that plagues his country. He also claimed, according to columnist Bill Press, that violence levels are directly related to the number of guns in circulation. Both of these assertions are demonstrably false.

Except for the fact that the Mexican President, just like the Obama administration must have known about Fast and Furious.

3. Mexico Knew About Fast and Furious

Andrew Selee, vice president for programs at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. says the Mexican government was aware of the gun-walking, in spite of releasing a statement saying they were not. William Newell, the special agent in charge of ATF's Phoenix field division and one of the supervisors of Fast and Furious, told Univision, via his attorney, that the Procuraduria General De La Republica (PGR) in Mexico was certainly aware of the operation.

Also of note. The response from the U.S. government to the whistle blowing of Fast and Furious was to fire or reprimand officers who helped to uncover the false flag operation. For example.

The Smearing of Fast and Furious Whistleblower John Dodson
Katie Pavlich | Oct 03, 2012

For a year prior to Terry’s murder, Dodson worked as part of ATF Phoenix Gunrunning Group VII, the group assigned to carry out the bulk of Fast and Furious. He was told for months to allow thousands of AK-47 style guns to walk into Mexico. He was instructed to watch straw purchasers illegally buy weapons, but not to arrest them. Dodson asked his superiors on multiple occasions if they were prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions and the tactics used throughout the operation.

“I asked them if they were prepared to go to the funeral of a Border Patrol agent over this or Cochise County deputy – if they were prepared to watch that widow accept that folded flag because that’s exactly what was going to happen. So they can't claim that was an unforeseen consequence,” Dodson asserted on Fox News. He said the same thing during congressional testimony on June 15, 2011.

Dodson was vocal within ATF throughout 2010 about his concerns, and on March 3, 2011, he exposed Fast and Furious and its connection to Brian Terrys murder on national television to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson.

By this point, Dodson was used to retaliation within ATF, specifically for speaking out against Operation Fast and Furious and its tactics. He had been screamed at by supervisors, reassigned and even had his weapons taken away without valid cause. Raising questions about a program he knew would leave hundreds dead was unacceptable -- and outside of ATF’s chain of command protocol. After he made the lethal realities of Fast and Furious public, things got worse.

What the ATF did in retaliation for this whistleblower is long, and can't be excerpted in one post. Keep reading on the above link to find out other retaliatory tactics used by the Obama administration and the ATF.

Monday, 14 October 2013
Obama ATF Tries to Censor Fast and Furious Whistleblower

Written by Alex Newman

The Obama administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in particular, are under fire from across the political spectrum again after they were publicly exposed trying to censor a key whistleblower in the Fast and Furious federal gun-running scandal by preventing him from publishing a book about it. Claiming that publication of ATF Special Agent John Dodsons manuscript would harm agency morale, official documents show that the out-of-control bureaucracy sought to violate the First Amendment in an apparent effort to avoid further scrutiny of its lawless activities. However, that attempt failed miserably, and the scandal is back in the headlines with a vengeance.

The Fast and Furious revelations showed, among other deadly serious scandals, that the ATF, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department, and other top officials conspired to send thousands of high-powered weapons to Mexican drug cartels at U.S. taxpayer expense. Many of those guns were used to murder Mexican citizens and even U.S. law-enforcement officers. It was later learned from official documents that the supposed “drug lords” allegedly being “investigated” were already on the FBI payroll, and that the administration was plotting to use the Fast and Furious violence to advance its unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment.

Both, the Obama administration and the Mexican government well fully aware of this operation from the start. It was a joined effort by both the U.S. Government and the Mexican government to blame American "lax gun laws" for the Mexican drug cartels for getting their weapons when in fact both governments knew that it was the United States Government who provided the Mexican drug cartels with these weapons.

BTW, gun restriction started in the United States back in 1986, and since then several heavily restricted laws have been passed. The claim that "they are not going after your guns" is false, and has been false for a long time. Because gun control laws already exist since 1986.

edit on 9-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:14 PM

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I used to like Steven Seagal when he was all -small movements, maximum effectivity and that. Such a shame he seemed to become an idiot.

Are you so sure it is him?

All of his points do have merit about patterns and coincidences.

Who is the one being fooled?

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:21 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Excellent post. And it proves 100 percent that the Obama administration is nothing but a criminal enterprise once and for all.
They proved their guilt for fast and furious by how they have always responded. Even attempting to classify information to hide illegal activity, and still the Obama lovers deny this. You could beat them over the head with nothing but facts and they still brazenly reject it.
This kind of ignorance though is obviously as transparent as a glass window.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:44 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The GOP is increasingly spouting "armed insurrection" by the people as an argument for gun ownership. I've noticed it, I've noticed more comments mentioning it.

Nowadays this revolutionary rationale for gun rights is becoming the rule rather than the exception for conservative politicians and advocates. Mike Huckabee, a sunny and irenic candidate for president in 2008, all but threatened revolutionary violence in his recent campaign book for the 2016 cycle, God, Guns, Grits and Gravy:

If the Founders who gave up so much to create liberty for us could see how our government has morphed into a ham-fisted, hypercontrolling “Sugar Daddy,” I believe those same patriots who launched a revolution would launch another one. Too many Americans have grown used to Big Government’s overreach. They’ve been conditioned to just bend over and take it like a prisoner [!]. But in Bubba-ville, the days of bending are just about over. People are ready to start standing up for freedom and refusing to take it anymore.

And it's not just Huckabee either, Ben Carson is jumping in:

Dr. Ben Carson, another candidate thought to be a mild-mannered Christian gentleman, recently disclosed that he used to favor modest gun control measures until he came to realize the importance of widespread gun ownership as a safeguard against “tyranny.” "When you look at tyranny and how it occurs, the pattern is so consistent: Get rid of the guns," Carson told USA Today.

And it's not just at the national level, at the state level GOP politicians are jumping on the tyranical/armed resistance/constitutional conservative/radicalized Republican boat:

Here’s Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, the darling of the GOP Class of 2014, talking about this contingency in 2012:

I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter, and it goes with me virtually everywhere...But I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family — whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

Talking Points Memo

The more militant the pro-gun rights people get, the more seditious and dangerous they appear. If there is any "liberal conspiracy" -- it's certainly not to take guns away. No, rather it is to radicalize the right so much that they become a serious and legitimate concern as domestic terrorists in the eyes of the government. If those that are pro 2nd Amendment aren't careful, they'll alienate and trap themselves in a corner.

I've been observing, and I'm just saying it now -- if people want the right to own guns preserved, the rebellious/seditious/armed resistance talk isn't helping their cause in any way. If anything it'll just bring down the hammer even faster. If I were a GOP strategist, I'd be thinking outside the box for alternative ways to deal with keeping the government's hands off my guns.
edit on 9-10-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:48 PM
Here is some perspective. From 1984 to 2015. Note some of those events happened at the height of the Clinton ASWB, and in places like Caifornia that are gun control utopias.

Deadliest U.S. mass shootings | 1984-2015

Theres men.

Theres women.

There's minorities.

edit on 9-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:36 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Disarm your population and you just need a thuggish police force to protect the elite. Cheap and efficient.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 01:54 AM
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Is there any chance what so ever, that as they tyrannies of their government become more clear to the people you refer to, the original wording of the constitution, as it pertains to matters like dealing with dodgy governments, becomes more obviously relevant to their lives?

It seems to me that it would be a natural response. If a person has never been angry enough to protest, it may mean that they never look into, or pay attention to the laws in their nation to do with things like free association, the right to assemble, and to protest. Those things become relevant to people, generally speaking, when they become outraged enough to need to get into the streets with a banner or placard, and try to make a difference. Perhaps this is merely a case of things getting worse with respect to government overreach and questionable motives on Capitol Hill, causing folk to look seriously at any, and all options to solve that problem, and protect themselves from that problem?

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 02:01 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

I think its a case of general anger, discontent, disenfranchisement, and dis-empowerment that's misdirected (possibly gently being pushed?) in a more radicalized direction. The argument has always been around, and it's always been cited -- but never as forcefully and by so many.

There are a lot of things to be upset about in America, and sure if you are a gun lover any potential infringement on the 2nd Amendment is one of them...but I find it curious as how much more radical this particular issue is getting so quickly compared to others.

Perhaps it's simply an easy rallying cry for GOP candidates and conservative talking heads *shrug*

All I know is it can be a dangerous road to go down if not tempered correctly, you never want to go off "half cocked"...

(pun intended)
edit on 10-10-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 02:17 AM
a reply to: MystikMushroom

" Today? Today protection from a tyrannical government is their main argument. "

With Good Reason to I Might add . Try Reading the Writings of the Late Thomas Jefferson , he was Prophetic in his Understanding of How a Free Democratic Republic could be Corrupted by a Federal Government Controlled by a Corporate Elite that will lead to an erosion of Constitutional Rights , which in turn would Produce a Tyranny on a Society of Free People if not Kept in Check . The present Obama Administration and a Democratic Party Infested with Communist Rabble-rousers today is Proof Positive that he was Right .
edit on 10-10-2015 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 02:54 AM
Steven Seagal? Is this the same Steven Seagal who:
churns out B-schlock, straight-to-torrent action turds made in ex Soviet, eastern bloc crap-holes?
• only claim to fame is Under Siege -- a film carried by Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey?
• fronts a laughably rubbishy band named after an outdoor toilet?
hangs out with corrupt, Russki oligarchs (who fund his garbage films)?
• was involved with and was forced to testify against the Mafia?
threatened and bribed his ex wife, Kelly LeBrock?
committed polygamy by absconding from Japan and his Japanese wife (who had to subsequently annul the marriage herself)?
• is a known womaniser and casting couch pervert / sexual molester?
• thinks the so-called "front-kick" he supposed taught MMA fighter, Anderson Silva, won said fighter a UFC title (even though he won via submission)?
believes he's an incarnation of Buddha?
• ...despite thus pacifist leanings, specialises in ultra violent, action trash--tainment??

If so, the gun barrel fellators are sure getting desperate, delegating representation to this halfwit hack! xD
edit on 10-10-2015 by TheInhumanCentipede because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in