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.

 

Gun-control proponents lament as "Assault Weapons Ban" does nothing

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

Are normal people allowed to own cannons and explosives these days the the US?


"Normal" people? Already locked into your place on the farm?

The short answer is yes. The details and specifics may vary depending on where you live and what you mean when you say "cannon" and "explosive" but the answer is still yes.




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Dont get me wrong , i am not anti gun.



"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.


Is that defined in the amendment?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Dont get me wrong , i am not anti gun.



"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.


Is that defined in the amendment?



No, there are no defining terms as to what "arms" constitute.
Seeing as the Amendment was created to allow the people to bear weapons against a tyrannical Govt, by default, it has to allow the people to at the very least match the arms available to the Govt representative.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere



"Normal" people? Already locked into your place on the farm?


Why so aggressive?

When i said normal people i was referring to people who have not been in the military , i know they are allowed certain thing that other people are not.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: PhoenixOD

So you mean only a few hundred years before they used edged weapons and arrows/bolts or seige machines and they didn't realize how arms could advance. Your arguement is so illogical it makes me wonder if you've even thought about it before adopting it as your stance. They knew full well we would have more advanced stuff because they had more advanced stuff than the comparable time as we are now before them. It's clear as day why they wrote the 2nd ammendment...it was to ensure we had the means to fight back against tyranny. The leaders of the time have been historically quoted saying it numerous times in various ways and yet people still argue the same old tired broken points. Give it a rest and step back...now use logic and common sense and come back to us.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Dont get me wrong , i am not anti gun.



"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.


Is that defined in the amendment?



No, there are no defining terms as to what "arms" constitute.
Seeing as the Amendment was created to allow the people to bear weapons against a tyrannical Govt, by default, it has to allow the people to at the very least match the arms available to the Govt representative.


But its clear that people cant own arms that "least match the arms available to the Govt representative".



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

I get a kick out of these stories. Assault weapon? Really? Following that thinking, would we arm our soldiers with these weapons to assault a target? NO, then they really aren't assault weapons. Also following the idea that a semi-automatic is an assault weapon, what's next? A .22??? Seriously?? Aren't most pistols also assault weapons since a great deal of them are semi-automatic? The term assault weapon is OVER used, and just lame.
The only weapon I see that are assault weapons, are fully automatic... I wouldn't use anything else to assault a building full of terrorist. LOL



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

When i said normal people i was referring to people who have not been in the military , i know they are allowed certain thing that other people are not.


What thing is that?

Other than a "veteran" license plate of course.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD



Your arguement is so illogical it makes me wonder if you've even thought about it before adopting it as your stance.


Strange that you automatically label someone as having a 'stance' which i assume you think is opposite your own when they are merely exploring the pros and cons of living by a 400 year old law.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: thisguyrighthere



"Normal" people? Already locked into your place on the farm?


Why so aggressive?

When i said normal people i was referring to people who have not been in the military , i know they are allowed certain thing that other people are not.

No once discharged they aren't afforded any special ability a civilian can't get as well. When they are still serving they don't own anything more than the same small arms they can as a civilian save for full auto which you can also have as a civilian if you pay for the license. The rest of the weapons the gov owns and issues for use.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Yep Americas lust for weaponry seems to win every time. If gun control does nothing then why have it at all? Maybe we should just let everyone have any weapon (grenades, bazookas, flame throwers, etc) they want at any age and be done with it.

Zero restrictions for everyone, even for convicted felons. Allow concealed carry for anyone in any place , schools, airports etc etc..

Then America would be a much safer place.






This is a basic human right just like free speech........Not lust. So many progressives have bought into the lie given to them by their masters. The thin line that keeps us all away from total control is the 2nd.


This is a world issue because everyone will lose basic human rights when the masters want real power.
edit on 14-5-2014 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Except to explore you'd have to break new ground...thats a little different than a broken record.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

When i said normal people i was referring to people who have not been in the military , i know they are allowed certain thing that other people are not.


What thing is that?

Other than a "veteran" license plate of course.


I think that veterans (or maybe people in the military) are allowed to own certain weapons that civilians are not. I remember seeing some show on in America where they had a pawn shop that just deals in guns and they said on that that military were allowed different weapons.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Dont get me wrong , i am not anti gun.



"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.


Is that defined in the amendment?



No, there are no defining terms as to what "arms" constitute.
Seeing as the Amendment was created to allow the people to bear weapons against a tyrannical Govt, by default, it has to allow the people to at the very least match the arms available to the Govt representative.


But its clear that people cant own arms that "least match the arms available to the Govt representative".



No, it is very very clear that the private ownership of arms is for use against a tyrannical Govt, therefore allowing a matching of arms.

It was specifically designed to not define specific arms for this reason.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Except to explore you'd have to break new ground...thats a little different than a broken record.


Like anything you have said hasn't been said a million times as well..

Im just talking



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

When i said normal people i was referring to people who have not been in the military , i know they are allowed certain thing that other people are not.


What thing is that?

Other than a "veteran" license plate of course.


I think that veterans (or maybe people in the military) are allowed to own certain weapons that civilians are not. I remember seeing some show on in America where they had a pawn shop that just deals in guns and they said on that that military were allowed different weapons.


So do you know or think this opinion you have?

Regardless, whether you know it or think it it's wrong.

Edit to clarify: in some states there are "law enforcement carve outs" that let current (sometimes past) cops own rifles or handguns that non-cops are prohibited from owning. This is in some states. Not all.

Now, something similar may exist is some states for current or ex-military. Of that I'm not certain.

For the rest of us living in the majority "free" states there are no such restrictions.
edit on 14-5-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Dont get me wrong , i am not anti gun.



"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.


Is that defined in the amendment?



No, there are no defining terms as to what "arms" constitute.
Seeing as the Amendment was created to allow the people to bear weapons against a tyrannical Govt, by default, it has to allow the people to at the very least match the arms available to the Govt representative.


But its clear that people cant own arms that "least match the arms available to the Govt representative".



No, it is very very clear that the private ownership of arms is for use against a tyrannical Govt, therefore allowing a matching of arms.

It was specifically designed to not define specific arms for this reason.



Yes i understand that , it just seems that these days people cant own the same weapons as the government



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

When i said normal people i was referring to people who have not been in the military , i know they are allowed certain thing that other people are not.


What thing is that?

Other than a "veteran" license plate of course.


I think that veterans (or maybe people in the military) are allowed to own certain weapons that civilians are not. I remember seeing some show on in America where they had a pawn shop that just deals in guns and they said on that that military were allowed different weapons.


Veterans are not considered as part of the Military once they separate/retire.
A veteran is just that, a veteran of the Military. It doesn't afford them any special rights to ownership of certain firearms.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Ok, i was mistaken



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Ok I tell you what...if you can show me reason to think those who wrote the right into our bill of rights intended it to be anything other than a protective measure for the citizens to fight back a tyrannical government and for the protection of ourselves as humans...which is deeper than just Americans...pl3ase bring it forth until then people like me will continue to feed you the same winning arguments that rebut yours all day.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join