Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Future of Gun Control with Cody Wilson

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


No not at all.

What I would ask is that Americans realize the context in which that was written. That the founding fathers never imagined automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That had they had such things, the 2nd amendment would have probably been a whole lot more specific that it is now.

I'd like them, much like the religious, to stop using documents from hundreds of years ago to justify sound policy decisions in a modern society.

~Tenth


Please point out where "laptop" is used in relation to the 1st Amendment.

QED




posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

beezzer

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


No not at all.

What I would ask is that Americans realize the context in which that was written. That the founding fathers never imagined automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That had they had such things, the 2nd amendment would have probably been a whole lot more specific that it is now.

I'd like them, much like the religious, to stop using documents from hundreds of years ago to justify sound policy decisions in a modern society.

~Tenth


Please point out where "laptop" is used in relation to the 1st Amendment.

QED


Straw man argument.

The 1st amendment is an entirely different issue and does not involve things that KILL YOU in the run of a day. Please choose a proper example to contrast.

~Tenth
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Totally agree with you



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   

tothetenthpower

beezzer

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


No not at all.

What I would ask is that Americans realize the context in which that was written. That the founding fathers never imagined automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That had they had such things, the 2nd amendment would have probably been a whole lot more specific that it is now.

I'd like them, much like the religious, to stop using documents from hundreds of years ago to justify sound policy decisions in a modern society.

~Tenth


Please point out where "laptop" is used in relation to the 1st Amendment.

QED


Straw man argument.

The 1st amendment is an entirely different issue and does not involve things that KILL YOU in the run of a day. Please choose a proper example to contrast.

~Tenth
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


Uh-uh. You specified automatic weapons in the Second.

I replied with laptops in the First.

Relavent.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Honestly, I'd expect better.


You specified automatic weapons in the Second.


No, I said had the founding fathers HAD automatic weapons, the law would probably have looked much differently to account for such things.

The first amendment has no actual need to be updated as it covers something extremely specific as opposed to something EXTREMELY vague like the 2nd amendment.

So again Beezzer, please don't make comparisons with apples and oranges, it's bad form and really only serves to strengthen your opponent's argument.

The arguments against gun control are mostly emotional and patriotic, as opposed to being grounded in logic and having an understanding of contemporary culture and the quite obvious repercussions of having an armed populace.

~Tenth
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


Honestly, I'd expect better.


You specified automatic weapons in the Second.


No, I said had the founding fathers HAD automatic weapons, the law would probably have looked much differently to account for such things.

The first amendment has no actual need to be updated as it covers something extremely specific as opposed to something EXTREMELY vague like the 2nd amendment.

So again Beezzer, please don't make comparisons with apples and oranges, it's bad form and really only serves to strengthen your opponent's argument.

The arguments against gun control are mostly emotional and patriotic, as opposed to being grounded in logic and having an understanding of contemporary culture and the quite obvious repercussions of having an armed populace.

~Tenth
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



All this furthers my argument that we don't have rights anymore.



We have "privileges".



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


And my argument is that you've all proven that you should not be entitled to such rights, since you squander and misuse them, pretty much every chance you get.

Sorry for all the good gun owners out there, but it's just not necessary.

I see no need to have an Ar-15 for 'civilian' purposes. Other than collecting or sport shooting.

Any other reason to own one, is just plain stupid.

But it's ok, I see you don't wish to actually engage me in conversation.

~Tenth
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I never get why people are always talking about gun control when we have the most lax gun contron in out histtory. Back in the day when towns would ban guns in town it was just accepted now that sort of thing would never stand. So it is pretty clear the Gov. is compeletly uninterested in any gun control laws. Of course despite that many people would tell you the exact opposite. Because big money goes into telling people that. To protect your rights? Hell no. One reason. Profit. So long as gun companies are making money hand over fist and can afford to keep most of congress in its pocket no gun control will ever happen.

Now is that a good thing or bad thing? Clearly we have a gun problem in America. People are idiots, they do not know how to handle weapons safely, how to secure them so kids or theives do not end up with them etc. Most guns used in crimes are stolen from legit owners. So what is the answer? America is not the rest of the world where we are just going to give up guns to reduce are insanley high gun death numbers. So maybe the Answer is we start holding people responsable for their weapons. Swiss laws require you weapons to be properly and safely secured when not in use, and the inspect for it. Perhaps that is where he answer is. All I know is to many idiots make me look bad. I am not some anti goverment nut who thinks people with hand guns are going stop the goverment. I do not leave my weapons unsecured nor do I handle them in an unsafe manner. If everybody would do that all our problems would be solved.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


You, sir are unbelievably misinformed. There were cannon and explosive devices that were JUST as destructive as devices like automatic guns and grenade launchers lol... and the founders WANTED the citizenry to have access to them. That was the whole purpose of a free society, to ensure that it remained free.

Couldn't have and didn't envision weapons that powerful...lol... Of course they did, that was one of the reasons for it's inclusion(the second amendment that is).

They absolutely envisioned more powerful weapons, the whole point was to ensure that the populace maintained the ability to fight back against an over reaching government.
Jeez, I swear people like you won't get until you're being led to gas chambers like in Aushwitz.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


There is no such thing as entitlement to rights. Rights are unalienable. You do not EARN them, they are not GRANTED to you by government. You obviously don't even understand the basic precept of a free country where government is run by the people.

Even without arms if the populace received too much injustice they could and WOULD fight back. That is the meaning of the term in our Declaration of Independence, "The consent of the governed".

No government can function without the consent of the governed.

The only thing that is granted in American government is the authority of those who run government. It is granted to them BY the people and codified in the constitution of the United States of America. The USA does not exist without the States individually and the people of those states consenting and granting authority to the USA.

Any law that is passed that is outside of the bounds of the authority granted to government by the people is null and void.

We have not yet chosen to exercise the means to ensure that those laws are not enforced, but I promise you that the people will not continue to allow the means to do so to be countermanded by illegal laws that are not within the authority granted to the government by the people.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 



AMEN!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 

Amen Sir. Anyone of these people saying the second amendment is outdated, better take a look into the heavens.
These rights are given by GOD, and can not be infringed upon. Barack Ubama has ZERO say about my right to arms.
WE THE PEOPLE are The Militia.
Period.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I imagine a world where those who pass laws, and the people who vote for them, would all be held criminally and civilly liable for any and all tortious acts it brings to another. We'd have a lot less voting, much less proposing of nonsense, and best of all, a more future oriented culture.

Basically, if you vote for making the possession of pot a criminal act, and then we realize that such a law caused more harm then good, then your vote counts as an act of violence.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Notheycant
 


The Second Amendment is dead.

We don't have gun "Rights".

We currently have gun privileges.

If we had gun "Rights" I could just go out and buy a full automatic weapon without registration, background checks.



You summed up our current situation accurately and succinctly.

What irks me about this whole situation is how ill informed many people are. The 2nd, and the original Constitution, is not a document giving the federal government power over us. It was the people willfully surrendering some of their rights and privileges to a national government for a more stable union than the Articles of Confederation.

The people did not surrender their rights to arms. The people specifically told the new federal government that their right to bear arms would not be taken.

Now. I know you are aware of this, of course. Like I said, that aspect of the gun debate is what perturbs me the most. Most anti 2nd people don't even know what they are talking about.

I know many people, if not most, will disagree with what I'm about to say. I would rather see criminals & crazies have the ability to obtain arms as opposed to common, everyday law abiding folks being forcibly denied that right.

Freedom is not a right or a privilege or something one is born with. Freedom is a luxury. Luxuries have costs. The cost of Freedom is granting it to everyone. The common, everyday law abiding folks along with the criminals & crazies.

The idea of this 3D printable weapon is brilliant in my opinion for reasons I explained above.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


No not at all.

What I would ask is that Americans realize the context in which that was written. That the founding fathers never imagined automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That had they had such things, the 2nd amendment would have probably been a whole lot more specific that it is now.

I'd like them, much like the religious, to stop using documents from hundreds of years ago to justify sound policy decisions in a modern society.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Sunwolf
 


So,the Founding Fathers could never envision automatic weapons?


en.wikipedia.org...



en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Notheycant
To all who are complaining about how I held the gun in the intro, do you also comment on movie threads about how irresponsible the actors handled their weapons in movies? If not, the "I shot Marvin in the face" scene from PULP FICTION is a good place to start.

How do you know I didn't triple check my weapon before we filmed the segment? Moreover, you'll notice I handled the gun appropriately when I actually fired it in the field.

Still, feel free to harp on that or weigh in on the actual subject matter of the video.

-

Josh


Seriously? Drop the cocky attitude. You're not making a Hollywood fiction film, your videos should illustrate gun safety if you give a damn about gun rights at all.

If you can't even realize the harm your careless handling of a firearm on video causes to gun rights, please refrain from making videos about anything gun related in the future.


As to the video itself, I found it amazing that this WomenAgainstGunViolence person asked if gun owners aren't trying to use guns to end a conversation, in her defense of government having them.... Hmmm, let's see, who has a history of abouse of power, gov't or the people?? Some people are so very very incapable of rational thinking...



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


No not at all.

What I would ask is that Americans realize the context in which that was written. That the founding fathers never imagined automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That had they had such things, the 2nd amendment would have probably been a whole lot more specific that it is now.

I'd like them, much like the religious, to stop using documents from hundreds of years ago to justify sound policy decisions in a modern society.

~Tenth


The private citizens of the colonies owned not only comparable firearms to the military of the day, but in some cases had superior arms. Rifled muskets were in the hands of private citizens, but the military had not adopted them yet.

Secondly, they knew all about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as again private citizens had cannons in their possession. Granted, not every joe could afford one, but wealthier people & even towns themselves owned these pieces.

Last point, the Constitution does not regulate technology. It regulates human nature, and that never changes.
edit on 2014/3/7 by mal1970 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Notheycant
"To all who are complaining about how I held the gun in the intro, do you also comment on movie threads about how irresponsible the actors handled their weapons in movies?"

Yes actually, I get irritated by actors in movies posing and running around with guns irresponsibly too. At least learn how to hold a gun properly, and another tip how to shoot one correctly also.


"How do you know I didn't triple check my weapon before we filmed the segment?"

I don't know you triple checked your gun a zillion times before you filmed that segment. And that's the point.


"Moreover, you'll notice I handled the gun appropriately when I actually fired it in the field."

Uhh, no...no you didn't actually. But, you are right that is for another discussion.

"Still, feel free to harp on that or weigh in on the actual subject matter of the video."

Look, don't get me wrong. I like your actual point in the video. And I like your other videos. You are on to a good start with video series. I like your enthusiasm for the topics you cover. Just couldn't take the video seriously when you are running around like a over excited kid shooting a gun incorrectly and handling it unsafely.

That being said I STILL like what you are about and what your videos are about.

edit on 7-3-2014 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

morder1
I think I remember reading somewhere before...

Laws are made by stupid people, who are not smart enough to figure out a real solution to the problem.


No truer statement made on ATS for a while now.






top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join