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.
Originally posted by coltcall
Originally posted by texasgirl
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by TauCetixeta
I think we may have found the antidote for the 2016 democrat ticket….
Rand/Cruz - Cruz/Rand or possibly Cruz/Rubio – Rubio/Cruz??
Hey, nobody knew Obama before the ‘anointed one’ took his throne. Cruz, Paul and Rubio are all making big waves and all have bigger national name recognition than Obama did in 2007.
Sounds like Obama was born in Kenya...and that doesn't seem to be a problem with liberal socialists.
By the way, what is Obama's legal birth name.....Soetoro or what?
Sounds nice but Cruz was born in Canada. That will be a problem for him.
Originally posted by coltcall
Diane Feinstein's supposed bill would allow a 12 gauge shotgun, but ban the same 12 gauge shotgun if it has a pistol grip.....and other ridiculous assertions by Senile Feinstein in her quest to outlaw the whole of the Second Amendment.
And liberal socialists wonder why the American public isn't falling for Feinstein's senility.
Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by coltcall
Yeah, except for the fact that a copper penny and/or a hack-saw are hardly the tools of a gunsmith.
The point is that there are already numerous variances that can be done to perfectly legal weapons that immediately makes them illegal weapons. So why is it that back when those laws were put into effect, it didn't spell the end of the 2nd amendment and/or the beginning of gun confiscation in America?
Originally posted by coltcall
reply to post by texasgirl
Here's what you said clarified......you and millions others like you know absolutely nothing about who Obama is, where he came from, how he got here or exactly why he is here.
But you seem to think that Cruz and Rudio should be held to a higher standard of accountability than is Obama.
Yep. We got the picture a long, long time ago.
Obama (whomever he is or where he was born) is here to keep you socialist liberal antiwar protestors off the streets and content with your entitlement programs.
Fortunately for you liberal socialists and your entitlement programs, many or us are content that Obama is keeping Bush's war against terrorism going at an orderly pace. The OBusho foreign policy saga continues.
You antiwar protestors are nothing but a pain in the butt. We're glad you are staying home in your entitlement contentment. Because basically the tradeoff of granting welfare in order to whack the whacky terrorists is worth the trade.
Support the troops....hold your noses about welfare entitlement. It'll all work out in the final wash.
If you happen NOT to be a liberal socialist, don't take the truth personals. It's all business.
edit on 17-3-2013 by coltcall because: (no reason given)
I am not holding Cruz to a higher standard, Cruz has already done this himself by speaking truths. It would be neat if he could run. I have a feeling he would make much-needed changes to get us on the right path again.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by texasgirl
I am not holding Cruz to a higher standard, Cruz has already done this himself by speaking truths. It would be neat if he could run. I have a feeling he would make much-needed changes to get us on the right path again.
Cruz certainly isn’t ineligible to be appointed US Attorney General in a Paul or Rubio administration.
That would be a nice fit for Cruz, me thinks!
edit on 17-3-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Timmerman421
Senator Feinstein tries pose the question, Do citizens need "bazookas" or other high powered weapons.
Well, If certain entities are trying to infringe upon rights that are supposedly "guaranteed" by the constitution, wouldn't that constitute a situation where, for the exact reason of the 2nd amendment, the people need to retake there government, and perhaps, yes, need bazookas and high powered weaponry to achieve that goal? The amendment specifically says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That is the entire amendment. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. the people have a right to bear arms. These weapons they are trying to ban, are, by definition, arms.
Even in the context of the founding fathers, Wouldn't it seem a little unfair if the people tried to take back there government and could only use swords and axes, but the government could use muskets?edit on 17-3-2013 by Timmerman421 because: idea highlight
Originally posted by coltcall
Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by coltcall
Yeah, except for the fact that a copper penny and/or a hack-saw are hardly the tools of a gunsmith.
The point is that there are already numerous variances that can be done to perfectly legal weapons that immediately makes them illegal weapons. So why is it that back when those laws were put into effect, it didn't spell the end of the 2nd amendment and/or the beginning of gun confiscation in America?
Outlaw the Second Amendment? Yeah. Sure. How about outlawing apple pie and baseball? It just doesn't happen. It's like gravity. It's here to stay. Quit jumping off roofs trying to change it.