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.

 

Holder: We Want to Explore Gun Tracking Bracelets

page: 5
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
There should be no "middle ground" when talking about our rights.

Instead of punishing everyone by treating them like live stock lets just punish those who break the law.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
don't know about the rest of you, but the only reason i track anything is to either kill it and eat it,
or to learn for later what i need to know about it incase i may need to in the future, kill it and eat it

if something wants to track ME that means it wants to be able to kill and eat me too, sooner or later

survival in the wild is not that complicated



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

HauntWok
reply to post by seeker1963
 


I actually don't have an issue with that. lol You're right, they should have to take a psychological examination. I would also go further and reduce their pay to minimum wage. I also would bar them from receiving any money from any source other than directly from their job in congress.

Would fix this country up I think.

reply to post by neo96
 



FIne then let's have psych tests to vote them.


That wouldn't be fair to conservatives.

I don't personally see how a tracking device would make it past a SCOTUS ruling. I don't think that it would be a good idea myself.


If you haven't noticed the SCOTUS has been making some seriously hair-brained rulings as of late. Do you really think they would rule against gun tracking devices?

They aren't on "OUR" side. They are on the side of the government and puppet masters. If something crazy ever happens in the USA you better hope you have a gun or know someone with extra guns. At bare minimum you will need them for hunting.

Tracking devices will be used for gun confiscation. The tracking systems will be used by local law enforcement to find you, especially during a traffic stop, and confiscate your firearm illegally never to return it.

You might want to think about what ALL of the tracking systems have been used for lately. Have they been positive?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I wonder if Holder thinks this would have helped when he promoted and donated guns to the cartels south of the border? I'll bet he isn't concerned about his own agents killed for his criminal negligence, only his agenda to remove them from people who don't commit felonies like he has.
What a piece of "useless garbage" he is. It just doesn't get any worse, than his example of leadership.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


I'm not even talking about a middle ground out of the ordinary here. I'm talking about a middle ground that expressly upholds our constitution to the letter, and the vision our founding fathers saw for this country.

It's detailed out in our constitution and the bill of rights.

Under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Out of this idea, not only do you NOT have your weapons taken away from you, you are ISSUED weapons.

The officers training you aren't even Federal, they are state employees. Your CO is a state employee, not a fed.

This is the founding fathers vision for the defense of this nation, not only against foreign invaders, but hostile domestic forces as well.

The federal government was never supposed to be allowed to have a full time military. Our founding fathers thought that was too much power for the federal government to have. They wanted the individual states to have a larger armed forces than the government did. And the only reason that the government were to have a military or have a command over such an entity was during a time of congressionally declared war.

If you pair that with the FULL text of the 2nd Amendment:


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.


You see how instrumental, fundamental, and important it was to our founding fathers. This also strengthens states rights under the 10th Amendment.

Do you see how radically far we've gone from where our founders wanted us to be? There was a very specific reason they put those words in that order. They didn't want you to ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment (unfortunately people often do) but it's THE most important part of the 2nd Amendment.

This is how it should be. You want a gun? You want it for whatever reason right? Hunting, shooting paper targets, self defense. You have an obligation to your state that in a time of crisis, because you feel that you are responsible enough to handle that firearm, then you are responsible enough to come to the aid of your state when it needs you. Be it a natural disaster, or perhaps stopping a violent drug cartel that is in essence a foreign invader with a well armed military of it's own.

This is a states rights debate really. Unfortunately for us. Many want their cake but refuse to pay the tab. They want their guns not to defend their community, but to terrorize their community and the people in their state. It's not supposed to be like this at all. George Washington didn't defeat the British with individuals who went on their own and fought their own personal wars. He organized a militia. Not an army, but a militia.

This is where the gun control debate needs to start and stop. You want both sides to be happy? It's not going to happen, but this is the middle ground between no guns for anyone, and making sure that idiot nutjob Alex Jones is never ever right. This is the right way because it works. It makes sure you have your freedom to own and operate a firearm, and at the same time strengthens the 10th Amendment from those that would abuse their power in Washington DC.

It would also keep guns out of the hands of those that would do harm with them. Why? Because if you were a part of the militia in your state then obviously you have every right to have a gun, not a part of the militia? Then what are you doing with that gun? Guess what, now they can take those guns away from those who would do people harm. Instantly distinguishing a lawful law abiding gun owner from the nutcases, drug dealers, gang members, criminals who give all gun owners a bad name.

Here's the added benefit. Card carrying militia member? Obviously you already passed your background check, here's your gun, no waiting period, no fuss no muss. And no screwing around with people who do use their guns in an unlawful manner. Do something illegal with a firearm? Now the state can go after you in a much much harsher way. Lock people up for longer that do violent things with firearms. And make sure that guns aren't on the streets where they shouldn't be. Now it's a state problem not a ATF problem.

Sometimes the middle ground works for everyone.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 





It would also keep guns out of the hands of those that would do harm with them. Why? Because if you were a part of the militia in your state then obviously you have every right to have a gun, not a part of the militia? Then what are you doing with that gun? Guess what, now they can take those guns away from those who would do people harm. Instantly distinguishing a lawful law abiding gun owner from the nutcases, drug dealers, gang members, criminals who give all gun owners a bad name.


Um excuse me for interupting your wonderful fairy tale of criminals and "unwanted's" from having guns but,


Do you think for one single minute that gangbangers, nut cases, drug dealers, and crininals give a damn about your new law?

Last time I checked it is illegal to do any of these you stated, with the exception of nutcases.

Is this stopping them now? Why be so naive to actually believe that more laws and rules would change this.

After all crack, heroin, meth, and lsd have been illegal for decades, but I can make a quick run and pick you up any of these ILLEGAL drugs any time of the day.

Seriously, will the mentality of the gangbanger change because of this?
"Hey man grab the 9 and the dope and lets go do some business, nah man they just made it illegal to own a fire arm that isn't registered, and the dope thing is illegal also".

Lol, seriously.

More laws on top of the mountain of laws will fix it(sarcasm off).

Pick on the law abiding citizen. It seems to be working great so far. (Sarcasm off).
edit on 7-4-2014 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


None of this is new law. None of it. All this is, is fulfilling the founding fathers vision of what they wanted America to be.

Yes, criminals will always get ahold of guns. What this does is better protect the people from not only being harassed by federal influence, but give law enforcement of a state a better tool to use to go after those that would give law abiding gun owners a bad name.

It's not even new, it's right there in the US Constitution.

Your argument is that murder being already illegal means that we shouldn't enact a law providing for self defense.

Your argument is completely invalid.
edit on 7-4-2014 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

HauntWok
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


None of this is new law. None of it. All this is, is fulfilling the founding fathers vision of what they wanted America to be.

Yes, criminals will always get ahold of guns. What this does is better protect the people from not only being harassed by federal influence, but give law enforcement of a state a better tool to use to go after those that would give law abiding gun owners a bad name.

It's not even new, it's right there in the US Constitution.

Your argument is completely invalid.


It is completely valid and is the underlying reason for more gun control.

Did you not state? And I quote.



It would also keep guns out of the hands of those that would do harm with them. Why


Then you stated, and I quote.



Yes, criminals will always get ahold of guns.


So tell me again,

Why have more gun control/laws if criminals can still get the guns to do harm?

After all in the article in the op Holder is using this as a reason for the improved techh.

More laws have time and time again proven to be innefective.

So again my arguement is relative by any gun control standards.

edit on 7-4-2014 by liejunkie01 because: put in more laws, instead of the interjected comment



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Your argument is, we shouldn't have laws against murder, cause people will murder anyway.

It's a failed idea.

people are going to murder other people. So why have a law against it?

That law doesn't stop people that are intent on murdering someone else right? They are going to do it despite the law. So let's get rid of those murder laws.

Why follow what the constitution spells out in the case of gun rights? People will still use guns for bad things anyway.

Do you see how your argument fails?




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I don't agree with psych tests to own/purchase guns but I do believe eveyone who buys a gun should first complete a comprehensive firearms safety course. Too many accidental shooting deaths by people who have no clue how to safely operate, handle and maintain a firearm. Even more by kids of parents who have no idea how to safely store a firearm.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Sorry double post

edit on 7-4-2014 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 





Your argument is, we shouldn't have laws against murder, cause people will murder anyway.

It's a failed idea.

people are going to murder other people. So why have a law against it?

That law doesn't stop people that are intent on murdering someone else right? They are going to do it despite the law. So let's get rid of those murder laws.

Why follow what the constitution spells out in the case of gun rights? People will still use guns for bad things anyway.

Do you see how your argument fails


I am not trying to be rude here but,

How does my argument fail when you are twisting it into something that I did not say?

Let me state it loud and clear.

Gun control laws do not, will not, and never will, keep the criminals that wish to have a gun, from getting a gun.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I'm not even talking about anything new. In fact, I am putting forth the idea our founding fathers in this country had originally.

Do you know what this does? This gives law enforcement officers better tools to use to correctly punish those that WOULD do harm with guns, and those that HAVE done harm with guns.

Your idea is that well, we already have laws against murder, and people still murder, so those laws don't work to deter murder therefore we need to get rid of all murder laws.

Your argument is a failed one. Yes, murder happens, yes, if we have laws against murder, murders will still happen. The solution isn't get rid of all murder laws because despite there being laws against murder murders still occur, it's to do something about what happens when someone DOES murder.

What I am proposing is following the United States Constitution to the letter. Thereby better protecting law abiding gun owners from the federal government under the 2nd and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution, ALSO giving law enforcement of this nation tools it can use to go after people that would do harm with guns or have done harm with guns.

But your argument is that because bad people already do bad things, we should do nothing.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I'm actually for tracking bracelets.... for all high ranking government officials and elected politicians. We need to keep tabs on them and know their whereabouts 24/7. They want to watch us, we need to watch THEM.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
laws against murder don't seem to be stopping murder just as laws against drugs don't stop drugs

Experts Explain Why the Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Following the release of a new study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health concerning the failure of deterrence in drug use, medical experts commented that deterrence also fails in the area of capital punishment. "It is very clear that deterrents are not effective in the area of capital punishment," said Dr. Jonathan Groner, an associate professor of surgery at Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health who researches the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

"The psychological mind-set of the criminal is such that they are not able to consider consequences at the time of the crime. Most crimes are crimes of passion that are done in situations involving intense excitement or concern. People who commit these crimes are not in a normal state of mind -- they do not consider the consequences in a logical way," Groner observed. Deterrents may work in instances where the punishment is obvious and immediate, neither of which are true for the death penalty.


thats not even counting holders fast and furious BS



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 





But your argument is that because bad people already do bad things, we should do nothing.



Can you please show me where I said this?

I don't usually do one line responses but, geez.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Were getting into a circular argument here. I don't like to play that game.

Yes, bad people will do bad things despite how many laws you put on the books. You can even outlaw death and people will still die. It's a sad fact of reality.

Im not proposing anything new. Just fulfilling the vision our founding fathers sought for this nation. A well regulated militia that is essential for a free state. I am not offering you gun control, but citizens rights protections. I'm not even offering it, I'm just explaining what the United States Constitution says on the subject.

Hell, under this idea, more people potentially could have guns. but the difference is, the right people, with the right training. it is gun control. As far as it will teach people how to better use their firearms in a safe and responsible manner. I think this would reduce crime. I think this would also bring about a better sense of community, and bring people together.

All under the United States Constitution.

Yes, bad guys will still get guns. It happens. But this protects citizens from the US government better, it also protects citizens from having their guns taken from them. What this does is also gives law enforcement better tools to use to prosecute those that would use guns for harm.

Laws against murder doesn't keep people from murdering, it gives authorities the tools it needs to put these people away. People are still going to kill no matter how many laws you direct against it. Same with guns. But you give authorities the tools it can use to correctly punish those that are just killing people versus those that are defending themselves from harm, that makes a difference.

You won't get it and never will. I don't care, and i'm not getting into this stupid circular argument.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   

HauntWok
What this does is also gives law enforcement better tools to use to prosecute those that would use guns for harm.



How would law enforcement know if someone would use a gun for harm?
Are they going to call miss Cleo?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


I get what you are saying. Loud and clear.

I would just like to go back and visit what you said just to show how much I understand what you are saying.




Na neo, here's the thing. Part and parcel to the 2nd Amendment and the reason that a well REGULATED militia is necessary for the security of a free state is the responsibility of the people. That's the founding fathers intent, that's what won us the revolutionary war, not selfish psychopaths off on their own mini wars. But a well regulated militia.

Fact of the matter is, I think that it's a great idea. You want a gun? Fine, show up at this National Guard post for your six weeks of training, and then you'll have to be on base 2 weeks a year, 1 weekend a month. And if there's a national disaster that comes up, guess who gets to do deal with it? That's right YOU!




Why would anyone have to sign up for the national guard when it pertains to a well regulated militia?

After doing some research into the topic I found myself on the FBI website. In it's contents I found this.

I am going to post the whole supreme court action
so I don't chop it up.


THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was ratifi ed on December 15, 1791. It reads, "(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."3 History shows, however, that this simple amendment is anything but. Over the years, much debate has centered on whether the right referred to in the Second Amendment is an individual or a state right.4

In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court offered some insight as to the context of the Second Amendment in deciding United States v. Miller.5 The case involved the interstate transportation of an unregistered shortbarreled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.6 The Court decided that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia forces."7 The Court further stated that only weapons with a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effi ciency of a well regulated militia" would come under the Second Amendment defi nition of arms.8 Explaining that the militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," the Court advised that these men would commonly provide their own customary arms when called to service.9 The Court, thus, upheld the ban of weapons having no connection to the militia or to the common defense.



I especially noticed this.



Explaining that the militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," the Court advised that these men would commonly provide their own customary arms when called to service.9 The Court, thus, upheld the ban of weapons having no connection to the militia or to the common defense.[

www.fbi.gov...

Lets refine that down a little further.


militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," the Court advised that these men would commonly provide their own customary arms when called to service


Why does a well regulated militia have to be only the National Guard?

The National Guard is a voluntary force. To force people to enter the guard just to shoot at "paper targets" or have a gun in general goes against the "shall not infringe" part of the second amendment. Does it not?

I am not at all saying people shouldn't sign up for the National Guard, what I am saying is if someone wants a gun legally and does not want to sign up for the Gaurd and they cannot get a gun, then this infringes on their right.

Does it not?

After all that is your whole idea and what you have been talking about.

You can have an idea what you percieve the founding fathers MEANT, but at the end of the day the supreme court has the say so in interpreting the constitution.

I do not know the answers to the issues. But i do know that creating more issues and muddying the interpretation of the constitution to fit your own belief system will only cause more problems.

Like I said, the link provides a supreme court definition of militia, and it is stated in the FBI website.

ETA: I would like to add that all of this was not just in response to only the quoted material in this post. It also pertains to other posts that you have made about the National Guard and militias.
edit on 8-4-2014 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)


ETA 2: here is a link to some great information regarding militias
www.guncite.com...
edit on 8-4-2014 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I have heard some people say they wanted to storm the whitehouse.

Something ELSE that isn't gonna happen.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join