Congresswoman: Norway gunman touted lax US gun laws

reply to post by no time


The events in Norway were a faked false flag attack, with faked footage, photographs
and victims. The alleged perpetrator is nothing more than a computer generated simulation,
with no real existence. Remember the computer generated simulated entity who was a
japanese pop star that was exposed recently?
But Reaping time is coming for the real perpetrators of the Fragedy (fake tragedy).
They really do need to get the guns off you Americans, amongst other things.

Here is an ariel view of Utoya island, where the alleged shootings took place.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1e0ec2eb300.jpg[/atsimg]

Doesn't it look alot like the shape of North America.
Now isn't that curious? Hmmm.

edit: only half the photo is showing on screen. It is fine in my ATS photo album. You
will need to see the full picture to see America.

Click Here and scroll down for full view.

Are US guns made in America or China?

Just asking

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by no time

 

The events in Norway were a faked false flag attack, with faked footage, photographs
and victims. The alleged perpetrator is nothing more than a computer generated simulation,
with no real existence. Remember the computer generated simulated entity who was a
japanese pop star that was exposed recently?
But Reaping time is coming for the real perpetrators of the Fragedy (fake tragedy).
They really do need to get the guns off you Americans, amongst other things.

Here is an ariel view of Utoya island, where the alleged shootings took place.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1e0ec2eb300.jpg[/atsimg]

Doesn't it look alot like the shape of North America.
Now isn't that curious? Hmmm.

edit: only half the photo is showing on screen. It is fine in my ATS photo album. You
will need to see the full picture to see America.

edit on 29-7-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)

Fake victims?

Do their parents know this?

Originally posted by no time
And so it begins, yet another attempt at a strike on the 2nd amendment. I am unclear on the facts surrounding how an attack in Norway has anything to do with US gun laws. I mean, if anything, maybe "fast and furious" was a global program?

You should just try reading your own OP.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. should be ashamed that its laws would allow high-capacity gun clips used in the Norwegian massacre to be sold and shipped overseas, says a New York congresswoman seeking to restrict use of such clips.

Explains it right there.

But here we go again. Even though gun laws are more relaxed than they were under Bush, another thread about how Democrats are coming to take your guns. If you had take five seconds to read the article you posted, you would seem almost serious and logical.

If the US uses this or any other terrorist attack to ban guns, its our fault not the lawmakers. We are always blaming the governememt for spending, gun control, and others laws limiting our rights. If anything, we are giving them our rights. These rights don't come from lawmakers, we were born with them, given to us by God. The way we give government our gun right is the same way we gave every other right up. How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.

Originally posted by gariac
Leave "fast and furious" out of the argument. It is irrelevant.

If the clip is legal to export based on US law and if it is legal to import the clip, then no crime has been committed.

See how simple it is when you stick to the facts.

Legal yes
Ethical no.

You are forgetting a lot of laws are written by those that are either corrupt and/or have no ethics at all.

Originally posted by Crapspackle

But here we go again. Even though gun laws are more relaxed than they were under Bush, another thread about how Democrats are coming to take your guns. If you had take five seconds to read the article you posted, you would seem almost serious and logical.

But we do know and have seen them in action now for some time whenever something like this happens. They just start quacking and jumping up and down blaming the entire culture. High capacity clips and mags ect ect being indicative of a runnaway gun culture, irresponsible american gun lovers ect ect. And they stop at nothing and hype up every opportunity to rag the "gun culture".

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Crapspackle

But here we go again. Even though gun laws are more relaxed than they were under Bush, another thread about how Democrats are coming to take your guns. If you had take five seconds to read the article you posted, you would seem almost serious and logical.

But we do know and have seen them in action now for some time whenever something like this happens. They just start quacking and jumping up and down blaming the entire culture. High capacity clips and mags ect ect being indicative of a runnaway gun culture, irresponsible american gun lovers ect ect. And they stop at nothing and hype up every opportunity to rag the "gun culture".

I would like to introduce you to reality where you not only still have your guns, you have more gun freedom than you have had in over a decade under a Democratic president. I do not worry about what people rail about in speeches as much as I worry about the reality of what they do. Gun laws have gotten looser, not tighter. Get over it.

Quick question, not entirely off topic: how many were killed last weekend?

all weekend and into this week, the figure was being put in the 90's. I then hear on the radio this morning, and then later on tv news, that the death toll is 76.

Now, I am assuming the original death toll from last weekend must have been based on a body count? Did a bunch people found dead get up and walk off, or did somebody screw up big time on the body count? Just seems a bit strange!

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet to to further the conspiracy or just to really tick us all off I read he used a Ruger Mini-14.

Ruger was one of the biggest supporters of the Clinton AWB. It was his letters to Congress and his testimony that were used to say "see, even gun owners want this ban" despite the fact that many boycotted the company and continue to do so to this day.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Well , I cannot say I agree with this congresswoman making this about US gun laws. The law on sale of these items WITHIN the US does not need changing. Its the habitual impotency of laws restricting arms traders and ammo retailers from selling outside thier own nation, except through tightly regulated channels that confuses me. Surely there should be a law against a nation selling arms and ammo to a person within a nation which does NOT have freedom to carry arms written into its culture?

When western powers arm rebel groups, and earn the emnity of "troublesome" nations, it is because arms have been traded with the intent of changing or damaging the status quo in the nation in which those weapons and or ammunitions end up. Normaly we arent to phased , because our GOVERNMENTS are doing the trading, and although its dirty work, some of us (not me , but Im just a guy) will say that this is part of the geopolitical landscape. But a NATIONS choice to deal arms to rebels is made with millions of dollars/pounds worth of advisors, planning meetings, boards of military and intelligence operatives. Even with all this top rate planning, things still go wrong, and weapons end up weilded by nutters. Bin Laden is a superb example.

When private organisations can just send things round the world, into nations in which thier sale may represent a threat to national security and expect no backlash, somethings maybe gone wrong.

That said, Norways laws regarding the ownership and storage of ammo dictate that no one may store more than 10,000 rounds , or 15,000 rounds if 5,000 of them are 22.LR or smaller. Unless the xenophobic piece of walking pus that shot all those kids, bought those rounds in excess of the legal limit of storage, and unless he made that purchase without having to give a proof of his ownership of a firearms licence in order to aquire those goods, I cannot see where the problem lies. If he provided proof of his right to own the ammunition within the borders of his nation, and was not in excess of his storage capacity, then merely selling him extended mags is not the issue that its being made out to be .

Of course, many people would infer from increased capacity that he was intending to fire at full auto, which is strictly prohibited in Norway, as is altering a legal weapon to fire at that rate. However, many other people would infer , that a person purchasing those extended capacity loads in the Norwegian market, may have been a collector which carries different legal status as far as Norwegian law goes. Until details of wether or not Anders Behring Breivik was legally allowed to purchase these items , such gum flapping as the congress woman is involved in, is largely pointless.

reply to post by morder1

I have to say though... If the military has it, civilians should be able to have it as well, why should the govt (forces) have an advantage over the civilian population... and they def got high cap mags

Does that go for stealth bombers, tanks and nuclear weapons too.

Reply to post by woodwardjnr

Dragging out that stupid argument again, eh?

Yes, it does.

Tanks and bombers are already held in private hands. There may very well be a "lawful" vehicle to owning a nuclar device.

Regardless, yes.

And to believe that this is madness is absurd. These items are so cost prohibitive that perfect open legality and the ability to pick them off the shelf at your local Walmart would make absolutely no difference in how many stealth bombers are in peoples hands.

It could be announced tonight that nukes are on sale at Costco and everyone can get one. How many people do you think can afford to purchase and store one? Two? Three?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

The killer first tried to get guns in the Czech Republik, thinking that the black market over there could provide him easily with everything. It failed.
Finally he came to the conclusion, that the easiest way to get a weapon was to legally buy it (in his own country) and ordered the amunition in USA.

If it would be about drugs, many of you surely would agree, that it does not make much sense to accuse the junkies and that you must stop the dealer.
But indeed some here sound like junkies, who are afraid somebody could take away their drug...

The killer started to carry weapons, because he was afraid to go out to town without one. I see a similar fear in all these Don't-touch-my-guns-threads. And some posters really write disturbing comments...

Originally posted by Crapspackle

I would like to introduce you to reality where you not only still have your guns, you have more gun freedom than you have had in over a decade under a Democratic president. I do not worry about what people rail about in speeches as much as I worry about the reality of what they do. Gun laws have gotten looser, not tighter. Get over it.

The thing....the reality is he would not dare mess around in that area right now. So they have these little yaping dogs that fill in the best they can. And they could if they would....dont underestimate this yacking.

But you werent around durring the Clinton years? Think talk is cheep even in this relaxed era? Have you forgotten the big talk early in this current administration? They would if they could. Remember the talk about putting a new Brady Bill on the table? They would if they could.

And another reality is that many of the newer gun laws like C&C are state laws. The current Democratic regime can be thanked for none of this.

Originally posted by Siddharta

The killer started to carry weapons, because he was afraid to go out to town without one. I see a similar fear in all these Don't-touch-my-guns-threads. And some posters really write disturbing comments...

edit on 29-7-2011 by Siddharta because: (no reason given)

This guy made a very large LEEP in his thinking somewhere. A leep that is not anything inherently found in gun lovers but in nut jobs.

This guy was a junkie all right but he was no gun junkie.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet to to further the conspiracy or just to really tick us all off I read he used a Ruger Mini-14.

Ruger was one of the biggest supporters of the Clinton AWB. It was his letters to Congress and his testimony that were used to say "see, even gun owners want this ban" despite the fact that many boycotted the company and continue to do so to this day.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Could you give any links or source on this Ruger thing? Both things Rugers letter and the shooter using a mini-14?

Ruger made a fully auto mini-14 and many versions of same. One of these versions were considered with the AR-15 for use by american military. Auto versions of the mini-14 are used around the world by military and police forces. Its also like the number 1 all time hollywood prop rifle seen and used in countless films and made for tv shows over decades. Its hard to beleive Mr Ruger would shoot himself in the foot like that. lol

reply to post by Logarock


Sure thing:

The attack in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik, apparently involving a Ruger Mini-14 assault rifle, is only the most horrific of the mass shootings involving the company's products.

Norway Shooter's Mini-14


and:

"No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun."
"I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round magazines or my folding stock."
"I see nothing wrong with waiting periods."

Bill Ruger, father of the AWB

There was a copy of his letter on his wiki page but apparently that has been edited to holy hell.

Here's an excerpt:

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives."

A lot of fanboys and the new heads of the company have been going nuts trying to bury what Bill did.

reply to post by beezzer


How can you make such backward statements?

Wheels are not made to drive over people.

Guns are made to shoot people.

This is just a stupid debate, whats to stop someone just buying more normal sized mags to equal the same amount of ammo in a high cap mag, oh wait, that would be taking logic into account haha !