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.

 

Only 2 Gun Laws By Obama Total---Both Benefit Gun Owners --0 Guns BANNED in 5.5 Years

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


The purpose of speech whether spoken or written (printed) is to transmit ideas.

The purpose of firearms is to kill.

The medium of transmission of speech is irrelevant to the transmission of ideas. Speech transmitted on parchment, is for all intents an purposes analogous to speech transmitted on paper, to speech transmitted by wire and printed on paper, to speech represented on a screen that looks like paper etc. Spoken words transmitted are exactly the same. The amendment is to protect the transmission of ideas, and technology has achieved a greater ability in this case to accomplish that.

In the case of firearms, the primary purpose is to kill. When protecting the ownership of firearms, the Founders acknowledged the need to kill other people, animals, et. al. they were authorizing an ability to kill at a rate of 2 to 3 a minute at best.

They were not authorizing the ability to kill at a rate of 800 a minute.

They were not authorizing the mentally ill or or the habitually criminal to kill at any rate.

Beyond all that, the Framers were reasonable men. They knew things would change over time; they had no idea that they were writing Scripture in the Constitution.

"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison)




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


And what else did they say quite clearly? That things change over time. They knew that the United States would continue to grow and change and transform. They knew that their descendants would face challenges that they had no comprehension of. There is nothing in any of their writings about the Constitution that would lead us to think that they believed they were writing Scripture that would never be changed or interpreted further by laws, regulations, etc.

These were, after all, only humans. James Madison clearly changed his mind about the status of the Militia after the War of 1812. The right to bear arms was inextricably linked to the RESPONSIBILITY to defend the country and the state!

That's also in "their writings" ... yes?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

HauntWok
A well regulated Militia.

As we have determined every able bodied adult is automatically part of the unorganized Militia, we get back to that wee little word REGULATED.

Oh snap! Game, set, match!

Gun control regulations are indeed constitutional (and they really are, or the Supreme court would have thrown out every single freaking gun law that ever passed faster than any president could sign them.)


Missed the ball entirely. Not only was it not "game, set, match," but you missed the court entirely. You do realize, from your obvious deep and detailed study of the history of the subject, that before modern Americans invented governmental regulation, "well regulated" did not mean control by the government but "well ordered" "well equipped" "in good working order." That they wanted a militia in good working order and ready to go, they wanted and mandated that all citizens be well armed.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


And what else did they say quite clearly? That things change over time. They knew that the United States would continue to grow and change and transform. They knew that their descendants would face challenges that they had no comprehension of. There is nothing in any of their writings about the Constitution that would lead us to think that they believed they were writing Scripture that would never be changed or interpreted further by laws, regulations, etc.

These were, after all, only humans. James Madison clearly changed his mind about the status of the Militia after the War of 1812. The right to bear arms was inextricably linked to the RESPONSIBILITY to defend the country and the state!

That's also in "their writings" ... yes?


That they put it as part of the fundamental civil liberties encoded in the Bill of Rights indicates that they thought it so important they ensured that it had special mention and protection. It would be like saying that the concept of free speech or secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was intended to be dispensed with at a later date. It was that important and considered that fundamental, along with the other rights protected in the BOR, that it was given special and specific protection.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Gryphon66
The Second Amendment is in fine shape (and will be for some time to come) according to the facts:

According to the NRA, 300 million Americans own a firearm, that number increases by 10 million per year.

(Source)

Gallup - Self Reported Gun Ownership Highest Since 1993


edit on 7Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:53:18 -050014p072014466 by Gryphon66 because: Removed parenthesis
 


reply to post by Gryphon66



Why? The number is well publicized in any number of sources. Such as, well, the one I provided, for starters.

National Rifle Association

gunpolicy.org

Google Link to 9260 other results that say the same thing

So, consider the number "checked."

Hint: Blowing smoke.

If you don't have factual counter-indicative information to contribute ... why muddy the thread?

 



from your sources:




Total number of Firearms owned by U.S. civilians (2010) .... 300 million

Total number of U.S. Firearms owned by civilians that are Handguns .... 100 million




Some people might actually believe 300 million people own guns in America !!!

You got it backwards that's why.

I'm sure it was an honest mistake though.




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

HauntWok
A well regulated Militia.

As we have determined every able bodied adult is automatically part of the unorganized Militia, we get back to that wee little word REGULATED.

Oh snap! Game, set, match!

Gun control regulations are indeed constitutional (and they really are, or the Supreme court would have thrown out every single freaking gun law that ever passed faster than any president could sign them.)


-sigh-

again, your reading, and language comprehension skills are below sub-par...

you have no understanding of how the language was used then, vs how it is used now.

in the context of the 2nd amendment, the term "well regulated" was used in reference to it being properly armed, equipped, and (when necessary) trained....as in "you're responsible for buying your own gear, so make sure it's the right stuff."

gun control "regulations" like the ones that limit our ability to own certain guns, because they LOOK scary, are unconstitutional....and any law that restricts our ability to carry a gun, is unconstitutional.......the only reason they're not shot down by the supreme court, is either because they've not been challenged in such a way that would require the supreme court's attention, OR because when they are, the supreme court thinks it's job is to interpret the constitution, instead of enforcing it....so they twist the meaning of the words to suit whatever their personal agenda, or political slant might be...

your argument is rubbish..
edit on 10-4-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I suppose we can have a 'discussion' on the founders intent, but the old phrase 'beating a dead horse' applies. Its been argued here and everywhere else to the point of tedium over the years and never resolves anything. But, why not.

1) I have a number of problems with the 'militia' argument. Given that 2A is widely recognized as only protecting a right, rather than granting one, even if we accept the validity of the 'militia' argument, it does not preclude the right of citizens as individuals to own firearms. For that, you would still need another federal law prohibiting it, and that law does not currently exist. The same is true if 2A were repealed tomorrow; as a practical matter it changes nothing.

That said, I reject the 'militia' argument in its entirety. The Bill of Rights was influenced by the English Bill of Rights that pre-dated it by almost 100 years, which did include a provision for an individual right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, that's not our law, but it is pre-existing precedent that we know influenced ours. Meanwhile, our own Bill of Rights is widely viewed as granting or protecting various rights of citizens or states, so 2A, as a power of the federal gov't, seems rather out of place, especially when its 'right of the people' language exists in other portions of the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, we also have the Militia acts of the time, stating that the citizens were expected to supply their own weapons and ammunition if and when called to service. And finally, I think the most damning evidence of all against the 'Militia' argument exists within the Constitution itself, from Article 1 Section 8:


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;


Everything that 2A was supposed to authorize as per proponents of the 'Militia' argument, Congress or the states ALREADY had the authority to do. The 2nd Amendment, therefore, as only applying to militia membership, would have been redundant.
There's only one practical interpretation left: the founders intended it to protect the rights of individuals, and by protecting that right of individuals, it would further strengthen the militia.

2) Regarding the Constitution as a living document, I absolutely agree. But there's a right way to go about that. Legislative attempts to circumvent the Constitution are the wrong way to do it. So is judicial activism. If you don't want an individual RKBA, repeal the 2nd amendment and pass subsequent legislation to ban private ownership.

3) Concerning technology, I don't doubt that the founders would have had difficulty foreseeing certain weapons technologies that we have today. That said, I completely reject the notion that they were Luddites who would have wished for their descendants to be burdened with antiquated weapons technology as it pertains to 2A. If you believe that, you essentially have to believe that they, as a citizen militia, would have not just been content fighting the English army with outdated weaponry, they would have desired it. Of course, that's absurd.

Limitations on 2A? A few will argue there should be none, but I'm not quite on board with that. At the very least, I believe in preventing felons and those deemed dangerously mentally incompetent from owning such weapons. In the spirit of 'weapons the founders could envision,' I also think it probably most appropriately applies to small arms/man-portable weapons to include rifles, shotguns and handguns of modern design, and by modern, I mean in keeping with the best technology available whether the year is 2014 or 2114.

Really, though, I think there's a very simple, realistic and Constitutionally friendly test that even the founders would approve of. The public should have access to the same weapons as the civilian police agencies. Civilian is civilian, and fair is fair. In fact, if that falls out of balance, I think you end up with civilian police that start looking like a paramilitary force, and I'm virtually certain that's NOT what the founders wanted.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Ah! Yes. That's an incredibly important distinction to the any point being made about any danger to the 2nd Amendment in this country. But, touche. I did state it backwards.

300 million guns owned and counting. Growing by 10 million a year. Mostly by ATS members apparently, LOL.

That last is humor; no need to correct me or ask for my source.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Honestly not sure of your point here.

I have never implied nor do I believe that the Founders didn't think that the citizen-soldiers didn't need firearms or that they didn't have a right as Englishmen, er, Americans to carry one going far back into English Common law (as I see someone points out just above).

I have never implied that nor do I believe that the founders didn't believe that Americans should have an inalienable right to own firearms.

I do believe that any one of them would have expected future generations to be able to make reasonable laws regarding the types of weapons generally available, registration of ownership, restriction of ownership (to criminals, the mentally ill and deficient, etc.), etc.

I do not believe that they intended the 2nd to imply that any American could own any number of any kind of guns of whatever type and carry them anywhere any time they chose.

I realize that opinions vary on the matter.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Thank you for an unusually reasonable response! I will try to be as rational in return if brief.

1. Yes, it's probably pointless to discuss. I always hope for greater consensus between reasonable people.

2. It's always sticky when we go back into English Common Law, but assuredly, Englishmen of the Protestant yeoman class and above definitely had a "right" (privilege, duty, etc.) to own arms ... but this was subject to limits. (Let's not pretend that this was even anything approaching an egalitarian question in England.) Quite often those limits had to do with their social class, the kind of weapon owned, but also with their membership in the militia (e.g. Charles II, Militia Act of 1662).

3. I'm not sure how anyone can reject the militia argument "in its entirety." It is obvious that there is a direct relation in the minds of the men who wrote "2A" as you say:

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.

If "the right" didn't have ANYTHING to do with "a well regulated militia" they would have left the phrasing about the militia off. These men were bright, educated, sophisticated and reasonable men. They obviously took pains to draft the document in the clearest language they could reach consensus on. It is a related topic although I do agree, not a limiting one.

If their intent was only regarding protecting the (well-established) freedom to bear arms, they would merely have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

4. I do not see nor have I seen any efforts to universally ban the ownership of firearms in this country. What I see is a well-orchestrated marketing effort based on fear-mongering that a significant portion of Americans have been inculcated with that any regulation of any kind whatsoever is a "gun grab." That any efforts to limit weapon types, for example, or to register owners, are nothing more than covert "tyranny."

Yet, there are 300 million firearms in the hands of Americans, +10 million per year.

5. I don't disagree with you about equity with the civilian police forces. Actually that seems quite viable.

6. I tell you what I'm far more concerned about which I see no "freedom loving patriots" concerned about: private security contractors, ala Blackwater. What the hell? You want to talk about a threat to freedom? Your liberty and mine?

Look in that direction.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Honestly not sure of your point here.

I have never implied nor do I believe that the Founders didn't think that the citizen-soldiers didn't need firearms or that they didn't have a right as Englishmen, er, Americans to carry one going far back into English Common law (as I see someone points out just above).

I have never implied that nor do I believe that the founders didn't believe that Americans should have an inalienable right to own firearms.

I do believe that any one of them would have expected future generations to be able to make reasonable laws regarding the types of weapons generally available, registration of ownership, restriction of ownership (to criminals, the mentally ill and deficient, etc.), etc.

I do not believe that they intended the 2nd to imply that any American could own any number of any kind of guns of whatever type and carry them anywhere any time they chose.

I realize that opinions vary on the matter.


I think that they believed that any citizen should own any type and number of firearms because for the simple reason is that they did. Jefferson was an avid gun collector, for example.

They did have a way to change the Constitution if future needs required it, but regulation, activist judges, and ignoring the constitution are not it. Have a constitutional convention, either repeal or amend the second amendment, and you have a legal way to change the law to "keep up with the times." Although I would disagree with it as much as I would disagree with a repeal of the first amendment, at least it would be legal. Until then, it is what it is and any effort to restrain my ability to keep and bear firearms of my choice is a violation of my civil rights as guaranteed by the second amendment.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

NthOther

Yeah, there's a lot more:

23 "Gun Safety" Executive Orders

Thank you, though.


Wow.. Well I guess this makes the Op's entire thread null and void as well as his ideas on Obama's attitude toward Guns in America. Many of these listed are down right frightening and do take away tons of our gun rights.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Private security contractors--used by the government in a paramilitary fashion. That kind of goes around again to be yet another reason to permit the people, not just the government, have the right to keep and bear arms. If you don't trust the government that hires Blackwater to do it's dirty work, why in holy hell would you trust that same government to have a monopoly on military style firearms?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Elton

NthOther

Elton

EDIT: There could be more, but these are the one's I am aware of.
edit on 7-4-2014 by Elton because: more info

Yeah, there's a lot more:

23 "Gun Safety" Executive Orders

Thank you, though.


From the link you provided....


It does not appear that any of the executive orders would have any impact on the guns people currently own-or would like to purchase-

and that all proposals regarding limiting the availability of assault weapons or large ammunition magazines will be proposed for Congressional action. As such, any potential effort to create a constitutional crisis—or the leveling of charges that the White House has overstepped its executive authority—would hold no validity.


Interesting, and thanks for the link. It appears that there are EO's I would consider good and EO's that I am not so supportive of in the list.


Oh yes it DOES.. Read all the points Carefully.. Read between the lines and you'll see most of these are anti-gun, anti-American citizens, anti constitutional
edit on 10-4-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

NavyDoc

I think that they believed that any citizen should own any type and number of firearms because for the simple reason is that they did. Jefferson was an avid gun collector, for example.

They did have a way to change the Constitution if future needs required it, but regulation, activist judges, and ignoring the constitution are not it. Have a constitutional convention, either repeal or amend the second amendment, and you have a legal way to change the law to "keep up with the times." Although I would disagree with it as much as I would disagree with a repeal of the first amendment, at least it would be legal. Until then, it is what it is and any effort to restrain my ability to keep and bear firearms of my choice is a violation of my civil rights as guaranteed by the second amendment.


I know that fact about Jefferson. He also collected musical instruments. He was a wealthy fellow and had the means to do so.

I realize that it is your understanding that "they believed that any citizen should own any type and number of firearms because for the simple reason is that they did." You don't know that for a fact, however. You don't know what each individual believed, and further, you don't know what each of them would think about the current situation we find ourselves faced with.

I don't agree with you about the need to repeal the second amendment, nor about regulation. I don't think the Constitution is "being ignored" when reasonable accommodations are made to balance the rights of the People with the People's safety.

The First Amendment rights are not absolute. Neither are those afforded by the Second.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

NavyDoc
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Private security contractors--used by the government in a paramilitary fashion. That kind of goes around again to be yet another reason to permit the people, not just the government, have the right to keep and bear arms. If you don't trust the government that hires Blackwater to do it's dirty work, why in holy hell would you trust that same government to have a monopoly on military style firearms?


That's a good question.

... but probably a moot one ... because neither you nor I can afford a Blackhawk helicopter or a Tomahawk Hellfire missile ... and they've already got hundreds. (EDIT, sheesh, I guess I don't watch enough War Porn,
)

I guess I don't fool myself. When the US Government wants one of us, or a group of us, or a city ... it will have it. These fantasies of armed rebellion are, for most of us, cinematic distractions.


edit on 16Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:42:59 -050014p042014466 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

JohnPhoenix

NthOther

Yeah, there's a lot more:

23 "Gun Safety" Executive Orders

Thank you, though.


Wow.. Well I guess this makes the Op's entire thread null and void as well as his ideas on Obama's attitude toward Guns in America. Many of these listed are down right frightening and do take away tons of our gun rights.


John, which of the 23, exactly are down right frightening and take away ANY of your gun rights? Please be specific.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc

I think that they believed that any citizen should own any type and number of firearms because for the simple reason is that they did. Jefferson was an avid gun collector, for example.

They did have a way to change the Constitution if future needs required it, but regulation, activist judges, and ignoring the constitution are not it. Have a constitutional convention, either repeal or amend the second amendment, and you have a legal way to change the law to "keep up with the times." Although I would disagree with it as much as I would disagree with a repeal of the first amendment, at least it would be legal. Until then, it is what it is and any effort to restrain my ability to keep and bear firearms of my choice is a violation of my civil rights as guaranteed by the second amendment.


I know that fact about Jefferson. He also collected musical instruments. He was a wealthy fellow and had the means to do so.

I realize that it is your understanding that "they believed that any citizen should own any type and number of firearms because for the simple reason is that they did." You don't know that for a fact, however. You don't know what each individual believed, and further, you don't know what each of them would think about the current situation we find ourselves faced with.

I don't agree with you about the need to repeal the second amendment, nor about regulation. I don't think the Constitution is "being ignored" when reasonable accommodations are made to balance the rights of the People with the People's safety.

The First Amendment rights are not absolute. Neither are those afforded by the Second.


However, the writings we do have, especially in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, letters, lectures, commentary are all consistent in that regard. It is true we cannot definitely say that EVERY ONE of them had the same opinion, the writings we do have are consistent and that those all say essentially the same thing--that the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct.

You honestly do not think they were confronted with crime, tyranny, oligarchy? The human condition has not changed one iota. They understood and experienced exactly what "we are confronted with today" and they understood that disarming law abiding citizens was not a solution. Honestly, what situation do you think is unique now that was never before seen in human history?

Your "reasonable accommodations" are ignoring the constitution and are in violation of civil liberties. Are government designated "free speech zones" a "reasonable accommodation" or an infringement? Does NSA violation of 4th Amendment rights a "reasonable accommodation" or an infringement? What you consider a "reasonable accommodation" (and who gets to determine what is reasonable? You? Obama? Nixon? I'm sure Nixon thought Watergate was "reasonable" when he did it.)

Yes, the first amendment is not absolute--when it infringes on the rights of other citizens. You cannot slander another citizen or commit fraud for example. However, you are not gagged or prevented from buying a particular book because of what you might do. You can certainly cry "fire" in a crowded theater if in fact there is fire and you are not gagged before you go into the theater in case you might cry fire. Your "reasonable restrictions" on ownership, unlike "reasonable restrictions" on any other civil liberty, are not based on harming others but because you are (unreasonably) afraid that they might do something. "Might do something" is not logical nor legitimate reason to restrict the civil liberty of another. A machine gun in my safe does absolutely no harm to my neighbor. None at all.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Private security contractors--used by the government in a paramilitary fashion. That kind of goes around again to be yet another reason to permit the people, not just the government, have the right to keep and bear arms. If you don't trust the government that hires Blackwater to do it's dirty work, why in holy hell would you trust that same government to have a monopoly on military style firearms?


That's a good question.

... but probably a moot one ... because neither you nor I can afford a Blackhawk helicopter or a Tomahawk Hellfire missile ... and they've already got hundreds. (EDIT, sheesh, I guess I don't watch enough War Porn,
)

I guess I don't fool myself. When the US Government wants one of us, or a group of us, or a city ... it will have it. These fantasies of armed rebellion are, for most of us, cinematic distractions.


edit on 16Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:42:59 -050014p042014466 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)


Actually they are not. Whereas one cannot expect a victory of an armed populace against a professional military in the field of battle, history has shown that asymmetric warfare has indeed overthrown governments. What you fail to understand, that this this situation would not be a case of their guys and our guys lining up on opposite sides of a field. It would be a case of citizens throughout the country fighting with their neighbors and troops refusing to shoot at their cousins and brothers and the contractor who makes the bullets for the army joining the resistance. Internal revolutions are not so cut and dry and an armed populace can certainly make the issue untenable for the government. Notice what the Warsaw Ghetto uprising accomplished with almost no arms at all. Imagine if they were armed like Kennesaw Georgia?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Skymon612
 


Ignore his statements regarding gun control. Rewrite history (regarding his previous views)

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban.

He endorses the DC gun ban.



When Obama was running for the Illinois state senate in 1996, the Independent Voters of Illinois, a Chicago-based non-profit, issued a questionnaire asking if candidates supported legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns,” to “ban assault weapons” and to instate “mandatory waiting periods and background checks” for gun purchases. Obama answered yes on all three accounts.


This is why gun owners view him with much suspicion and cannot trust him when it comes to gun rights. It was only once he started running for President that he altered his views (restated? changed his mind? Lied?) on gun rights.




top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join