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.


Obama is NOT coming for your guns.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 11:33 AM

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: amazing

Then why do so many public officials and their followers support bans on gun ownership?

They can support that all they want, but in the end, it's just rhetoric and it's been having the opposite effect. Failure all the same.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 11:33 AM
a reply to: AboveBoard

I accept your apology. And I offer mine if I did misinterpret your post. All I am asking here is an honest and thought through debate. There are no "one-liner" or "bumper sticker" solutions in this case. It requires a well thought out approach, and that cannot be done when emotion clouds anyone's mind. The term "common sense" is tossed around so often by the left-wing that it has lost all meaning. I remember hearing (not directly from you per-se) the "well, if you are not on-board with the no-fly list restricting firearm ownership, then you are allowing terrorism to grow". What, really? So now defending your Constitutionally protect rights is being equated with being a terrorist? So, will that be the next felony added to the list? After-all, it's not that far away from some of the existing felonies on the list I posted earlier. That could be another weak link added to that growing chain.....again.

This is what the 2MA movement is really objecting to here. The slow and relentless erosion of our 2nd Amendment protections. It seems to me, "common sense" dictates that if you want to slowly disarm the population, and go against the foundations of the countries supreme laws, THAT is more of a "terroristic action".

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" should be required reading for every student in the United States. Now that common sense I can support.

edit on 6/4/2016 by Krakatoa because: spellcheck

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 11:33 AM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Politics always has to be brought up, doesn't it?.

Good bye.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 11:51 AM
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

farewell,I hope you enjoyed your limited stay. this is a political thread on the politics of subtle gun control activities by primarily left wing shadow communists. I wont apologize if you were offended.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 11:52 AM
Firearms are nothing more than force projectors, where once that force is projected and on it's way downrange, is pretty much impossible to withdraw, same as a slingshot.

And if people don't wake the hell up, somebody will be coming for your slingshots eventually too.....

But nobody comes for anything until some little scaredy cat retard sees something they don't understand and complains to the authorities (being as clueless about the authorities as they are about rights) about something completely out of context, requiring the authorities to get involved.


You see?, only rich people want themselves to be able to defend themselves, everyone else should just lie down and accept their fate, right or wrong, and with the way the legal system works it pretty much ends up with people losing their right to defend themselves if they don't have the resources to attain adequate legal representation.

Poor ignorant Americant's.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 12:21 PM
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

so, do you agree that this scope can turn any human being into not only a precision amateur hunter, but an amateur assassin? It isn't the firearm itself but the scope that needs regulation. Your own child can grab this, climb a tree, and pick off their bully or people he does not like with simply a point and pull once the screen goes beep.

A man was recently arrested next to my parents home for having explosives in his home. I am all for fireworks, but pipe bombs that can blast away a home and all its occupants, and possibly my parents tenant not stored in a secured location is reckless and a danger to the community. I am still trying to determine if the entire thing was a psy-op because the details are rather unusual. Regardless I am happy that young man is gone, and with him his danger and threat to the people I grew up with.

These are the kinds of things we should regulate is my rational opinion.
edit on 6/4/2016 by AmericanRealist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 12:25 PM
a reply to: kaylaluv

(the old "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - PERIOD argument)?

What does Shall Not Be Infringed mean to you exactly?

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 12:27 PM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Regarding your initial question...NO.

I am still trying to determine if the entire thing was a psy-op because the details are rather unusual. Regardless I am happy that young man is gone, and with him his danger and threat to the people I grew up with.

Context, or lack of.

Scaredy cat.

And glad to be one for unknown reasons.
edit on 4-6-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: p;lkjhv

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 12:47 PM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Way to stray off topic and bring in something that is ILLEGAL to a thread on Constitutional rights. How about we stay on the topic? Let's not begin to purposely pull the old straw man .. again.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 12:51 PM
a reply to: Krakatoa

Thank you. Apology accepted.

If laws exceed Constitutional bounds then they need to be called out, whether it's guns or some other issue.

The debate is about where to draw the line and why. If people can't have the open debate you desire, if they feel railroaded one way or the other, it gets ugly. That's when work-around a happen like you've suggested.

There may be other reasons for calling some things felonies than gun issues though (things that shouldn't be felonies). It would be interesting to look at who crafted those laws and why. Gun ownership may be a side-casualty.


posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:07 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

AS for the felonies, yes, that is why I made that earlier post. Making something a felony now has the effect of restricting a Constitutional right. Most lawmakers do not consider that AFAIK when drafting these knee-jerk laws. Or, it is a willful attempt to side-step the Constitution in an effort to restrict more and more people's 2nd Amendment rights toward the anti-gun movement's cause.

Vigilance is key. And I expect soon, performing that vigilance and questioning these decisions will in itself become a form of dissent and find itself on that list of felonies. That is yet another fear that we must constantly strive to fight, at every corner. Yet we are seen and depicted as "gun nuts" and "crazy". Which brings up another avenue of side-step that has begun. We can all agree that "crazy people" should not have firearms, right? That makes sense. However, that definition of "crazy" has been steadily changed, encompassing more and more innocent citizens over the last 10+ years. It is the same movement as the expansion of the felony list.

So, who defines "crazy"? Does a psychiatrist? Does a judge? How easy is it to get that classification removed? Is it permanent? If being "crazy" is a classification that allows the stripping of a Constitutional right, then shouldn't that require a judicial review, and oversight to be classified as "crazy"? Again, another weak link in the chain that requires strengthening if it is to be linked to the removal of a citizen's Constitutional right.

Isn't that "common sense"?

edit on 6/4/2016 by Krakatoa because: spellcheck

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:12 PM
Really? You did this?

No one is coming for your guns.

Okay, I'm going to a grown-up party now.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:13 PM
a reply to: Krakatoa

WHAT? Hey all of this is governed under the National Firearms Act

What firearms are regulated under the NFA?

(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;

(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;

(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

(5) any other weapon, as define in subsection (e);

(6) a machinegun;

(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and

(8) a destructive device.

[26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]

pipe bombs falling under #8 a destructive device. Now the NFA could use a revision itself, removing any barrel length requirements from all firearms. Thats just silly IMO, and really has no consequence related to crime or terrorism as far as I can tell.

I am borderline on suppressors, just because it makes it possible to stealthily make a kill where noone would notice for hours and allow the murderer to get away. But I know I can figure out something there to make everyone happy, just give me time to draw up a proposal.

Destructive devices mostly regulate explosives. This includes demolitions licensing for professionals, and in some states shells for privately owned under mounted projectile launchers, God Bless their souls.

If you have the land and can store the DD's safely in a reinforced bunker and have filed the proper permitting, have at it. Blast AWAY! I will join you. Ill bring some junk cars to watch everyone who is licensed blow up.

But you just cannot have unlicensed explosives sitting in a wooden crate against drywall and stucko while renting a home from one family, and living around four others, neither of which have any reinforced homes that can withstand any accidental discharge with a large kill radius. That has to stay in NFA.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:17 PM
a reply to: Krakatoa

I have seen, with my own eyes, a trash can that said anyone who uses it without permission would be charged with a felony...

...Most people being as ignorant as they are of the law, consider a felony CHARGE good enough reason to deny employment, among many other things, such as renting a property and the like...

A misdemeanor is enough to deny you pretty much anything other than from a government entity or agency, which is obligated to observe your constitutional protections as the constitution is a contract they have to follow to keep them from infringing upon your rights.

This issue goes way deeper than most people have the time to concern themselves with being all hobbled with debt as they so frequently are.

You people (don't you hate it when people say that?) fumble into agreeing to more stupid contracts and agreements than you realize, and unfortunately are not aware of much, if any of them.

Use the internet for something useful and learn something that matters, so when the time comes to implement change you know what it is the people trying to make changes are even talking about.
edit on 4-6-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: ?

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:19 PM

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
They do not do things all at once. When they decide to do something big, they do it in baby steps and they let inertia carry them from one step to the next, so as to make the transitions as seamless (not jolting or alarming) as possible.

This is the strategy used by Fabian socialists.

The Fabian Society was named—at the suggestion of Frank Podmore—in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning the "Delayer"). His Fabian strategy sought gradual victory against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal through persistence, harassment, and wearing the enemy down by attrition rather than head-on battles.

An explanatory note appearing on the title page of the group's first pamphlet declared:

"For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless."

According to author Jon Perdue, "The logo of the Fabian Society, a tortoise, represented the group’s predilection for a slow, imperceptible transition to socialism, while its coat of arms, a 'wolf in sheep’s clothing', represented its preferred methodology for achieving its goal." The wolf in sheep’s clothing symbolism was later abandoned, due to its obvious negative connotations.


The elite-elite are Fabian Socialists. The two parties have been infiltrated by them.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:21 PM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

You misunderstood my point. We are talking here about firearms. IMO, classifying an "explosive device" as a firearm is another mistake fed by fear. That item should not be listed and managed under firearms regulations, but under it's own topic. The only reason I can see this is done is because, on the lowest level, a firearm requires an "explosive" to work, and therefore can be debated to be an "explosive device". However, we both know that a pipe bomb (or other bomb like device that destroys a point with a wide radius) is NOT a firearm.

That why I considered your post about pipe bombs off-topic here. It unfairly links someone making a pipe bomb with a person who owns firearms. They are most definitely mutually exclusive.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:21 PM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

All of these restricted things in the list you produced I could buy and / or make myself if I have the correct permits to do so.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:25 PM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Suppressors are frequently use to keep from disturbing the peace, AKA being polite, while plinking on a private range in your back yard or basement.

Yeah, people can have those if they can pass inspection.

Everything you see a terrorist or criminal using on TV does not make it evil.

As far a bombs?, guns have way better range and accuracy.

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:31 PM
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I like some of what you said.

But a few things:

Conservatives generally are known for 'the boiling frog technique', they don't change fast, they progress slowly. So are conservatives the same as progressives?

I am a liberal. I support the 2nd ammendment. I might differ with conservatives slightly on what the wording means, what the intent was, but I certainly support it. If anyone called for it's removal, I would fight them to the death.

I do know distractions are planned, but no one is ever certain from what.

Both Liberals and Conservatives have agendas, they would not be a group without some sort of agenda or similar (some shared) agendas, depending on the person, as well.

Who is turning on your friend? This was just a big 'bash the Left' thread. It should be in 'Rant'.
edit on 4-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:34 PM

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And when will anti gun activists realize, Criminals Do Not Obey The Law?

Just like people against people using the bathroom they think they match.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in