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.

 

Not One More !

page: 17
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

You mean being "allowed" to exercise the Constitutional Right should be "an exception?" This solidifies my belief that you're uninformed on what freedom is.




In the old days white people had the right to have slaves. It was in the LAW.

NOT ANYMORE!


It was never in the Constitution. Also, I find your attempt to compare an attack against the 2nd Amendment to emancipation of the slaves offensive.




posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

After what you said about the father, I lost my respect for you.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: voyger2

It's a emotional plea on his part, I've seen it too many times and have become desensitized to it, especially when it is being used to attack me, even though I had absolutely nothing to do with the death of his son. Others feel the same way.

How would you feel if you saw a grieving Father bawling uncontrollably on TV accusing his wife/GF of murder because she had an abortion? And that Roe Vs Wade (the law allowing legal abortions) be overturned. It pretty much boils down to the same thing, but with one difference.

There are no Amendments (Rights) allowing abortion. It's only a law. One that CAN be overturned easily.

Revoking the 2D Amendment would require a Constitutional convention if I remember correctly and that would be just a waste of time, money and effort. It just won't happen, and never will.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I will quot some off this interesting post from EF (right here: www.abovetopsecret.com...)

«Fact is...the 2nd Amendment needs to BE REPEALED. It is an anachronistic throwback to a time when its premise may have served a purpose. The country was young, the government new, and things had not settled down fully. Various states still needed to work through the Constitution and unite with the other states that had already accepted it, so things were still in flux, and thus the 2nd amendment as it was meant at that time was good to have.

Unfortunately, over the couple of hundred years that America has been around, it has changed and modernised, but the 2nd Amendment remains as it was when it was written into the Bill of Rights, but has been reinterpreted to suit each side. It will take an advocate for neither side to provide an objective view to propose a way through the gun control dilemma. However, all sides will need to understand that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and abolished...it is the only and obvious (and probably painful) way forward to a satisfactory conclusion.»

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would necessarily need to be phased in, but the whole project could be done over a 50 year period.
(..)

Of course, one aspect that this would entail is that the gun industry would go into something of a decline, and would obviously fight any form of gun control rabidly, especially the NRA, but once the 2nd Amendment is repealed, it becomes a whole different ball game. Americans have to face a number of harsh realities and face-to-face truths. The 2nd Amendment is the stumbling block, the obstacle to eradicating gun rampages and gun crime in America. Whatever crime is occurring in other parts of the world is irrelevant to the argument or debate. When it comes to a foreign threat, America has the largest and technological military to deal with it. The argument or debate on gun control is entirely predicated as a domestic one, and is specific to America and Americans.

Many gun owners state that the gun is not the problem, but that warped and twisted mentality is the issue. This is too simplistic and argument for the case, but it shows that mindset certainly has two faces. On one face there are gun rampages occurring way too often, and being explained away as mental deficiency, but that argument itself is a mental deficiency, because it upholds the right to have a gun, rather than the right for people to not be shot by one. It is twisted logic to place the gun higher than a person's life.

The gun was invented as an extension of the spear and the bow and arrow with one purpose in mind, to maim or kill with efficiency and at a greater distance so as not to place the shooter in equal harms way. It is excellent for the battlefield during war, but during peace time at home, it is not one of man's best inventions, and he has invented so very nasty ways to take life. »

end of quote.

- time for me to shut down is almost midnight where i live. have a good night or afternoon.
edit on v2014145America/ChicagoWed, 28 May 2014 17:24:48 -05002 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: voyger2
The second amendment will never be repealed. That is the first thing you should get through your head. There are not enough stupid leaders in our government for that. Even the antigunners are smart enough to know, if it ever happened, it would be the biggest bloodbath in US history. The military would not be on their side anymore, I could guarantee that.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: voyger2

A member from Portugal and a member from the UK "should-ing" America on our laws...




I will give you a tip, however. Most of us (people who actually defend the 2nd amendment) immediately disregard anyone who bases their "more gun control must happen" argument on the NRA. Do some research. The NRA is no friend to the 2nd Amendment, at least from a recent historical basis. They are a politically compromised, work both sides of the aisle lobbyist group which has absolutely thrown the American gun owners right under the bus when political pressure has been applied and money has changed hands. Micheal Moore is responsible for this current protrayal of the NRA as being the great defender of all thing American firearm related, and we all (should) know by now what a ridiculous, clueless windbag he is. The NRA compromises are why we have states with astronomical crime rates where law abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to own a handgun or even a rifle. Their compromises are why the insulting Brady Bill was passed. Their compromises are why California was able to ban lead bullets, effectively handcuffing home reloaders. They are a JOKE.

Look into the differences between the NRA and the GOA, maybe the next time you decide to try to tell Americans how we *should* think, you'll do so with an actual argument that is realistic and based on a group that truly has fought to protect American citizen's rights.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: voyger2

so lets say you make guns illegal. Completely illegal.

who will comply with that law? Do you think the guy who has a gun, and is prepared to shoot you, will comply? If so, why do you believe he would comply with a "no gun" law if he would be willing to kill you?

Why 1 gun? If you are going to trust a person with a single gun, why can't they be trusted with more than 1? Would you tell a mechanic that he can only have 1 tool? So if he needs a hammer, he will just have to use his screwdriver creatively? I hunt with a rifle and a pistol, because each one has a different use. My pistol actually is a pistol/shotgun combo (The Judge), so i have 3 options for weapons while in the field. Each shot does something different. My rifle is for accuracy when I am trying to bring the game down. The pistol is for close range needs, like if a group of hogs come up on me from behind. The shotgun shells are for rattlesnakes. it is a tool....why would you limit my ability to survive in my home environment? If i can be trusted with 1 gun, i can be trusted with 10....why limit it?

How will guns get removed from the streets? Is there a law in place already aimed at this? Have law abiding people already had their basic rights violated by these laws that have not worked? Should we keep throwing more laws at it, making free people less and less free in order to keep them safe? What if they disagree with you, and would rather just take ownership for their own safety so that they can keep their freedom?



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

Agreed, but its because there's very little political will for it. Consider that polling data shows that a large majority of Americans oppose a ban on handguns and note that the opposition has been strengthening for decades. You see the same long term trend happening in polling data against 'more strict' gun laws in general, and prior the hysteria last year, support was in the mid/low 40s, and the evidence suggest that the upward spike was temporary and already beginning to dissipate. Its already back under 50% even in this poll.

Of course, you don't even need polling data to know this. Watch how fast the Democrats scatter like cockroaches whenever their attempted 2013 AWB becomes an issue during the elections this fall. They'll be falling all over themselves telling you how much they support the 2nd Amendment. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic and disingenuous.

So all this talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment is impractical nonsense. Its simply not going to happen in the current political climate and, in fact, the long term trend has been and still is that public support is moving in the opposite direction.

edit on 28-5-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78
Bottom line, we were dealt a stacked deck. Generations before us were stupid enough to accept creeping "laws" that were not legitimate, so we fight an uphill battle. Mandatory registration, background checks, ATF putting their nose where it doesn't belong, etc etc. They were already in place before I could "legally" own a gun, and indoctrinated into normalcy to boot. I have owned guns years before I could do so legally, I drove on private property years before I could do so "legally" on the roads. As did most of my peers.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum

Dude if you think these people represent your interests maybe this isnt the website for you.


For a person who supposedly has their eyes so open to the corruption in D.C, you sure as hell are quick to want to surrender our 2nd Amendment rights. You left-wingers sure are inconsistent, always crying about corruption (rightly so), but again like I just said. ~$heopleNation


edit on 28-5-2014 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2
I have no agenda, just an opinion that I wanted to share after seeing that father's outcry.


Actually it's just that his plan to play politics, while appealing to your emotions as a caring human being, worked on you like a robot.


Maybe is time to fight against the cloud of fear that rules your lives.


It has nothing to do with fear, why do you keep suggesting such nonsense? Do you live in some kind of fantasy world where nothing happens to innocent people, do you ever watch the news or read anything? People are victimized all the time. Why take away someone's ability to defend themselves or others? Where is the logic in that?


Maybe having Guns at will is not the solution but the problem.


I think people like you who do not live in reality are the problem, your way of thinking actually costs people their lives, and repeatedly has.



You have lived until now in that kind if way and all you have raised is fear, paranoia, terrorism/mass shooting and strict regulations at schools, hospitals, public places etc... Maybe you should give it a try.


That is close to the rambling of a mad man. I seriously believe that people who think like you belong in a mental hospital, and are in need of some serious help. Nancy Pelosi as well.


People always have the power to change, to start revolutions, it doesn't have to be to throw out government's it could also be to take Guns of the street's.


Good luck with your protest.


Fight for freedom. fight for the freedom to walk the street's with out fear.


Fight for the freedom to be victimized by a criminal with an illegal gun. Wake up to the real world, you can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality.


People shouldn't be able to walk with guns on the street's.


They should not be able to walk with drugs, or concealed knives on the streets either, but they do.


As always, there could be exceptions,
At isolated places, for example, with big propriety's to take care, there owners should have a licence to carry ONE gun, and there could be more examples that should be taken in consideration at proper debate time.


There could be exceptions? Well how kind of you boss!


But, taking guns of streets that should be big issue for debate and for change. people should think on that instead of throwing rocks at me.


When is your brain going to comprehend that you will never be able to take guns off the streets? The hypocrites Leland Yee and Eric Holder don't even share your pipe dream vision, obviously we now know that it's all an act, and that your heroes have been working against your fruitless cause of taking guns off of the streets.

By the way, how did getting drugs off the streets work out my friend? No you see, what you want is law abiding citizens to be stripped of their right to bear arms, while ignoring the reality that criminals, just as with illegal drugs, will always have access to illegal firearms.

Just ask your pal California Democrat, pro gun control, Senator Leland Yee.

~$heopleNation
edit on 28-5-2014 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

That's not what I said. What I said is that you wish to ban things you do not understand and from that lack of understanding comes irrational fear. We often fear that which we don't understand. You don't understand what makes one round "more deadly" than another but all you know is what you have been fed so you want to ban what you fear but you don't know why--if you came to the states, I'd gladly take you shooting in a safe and controlled environment and teach you all about the various firearms and why a semiauto hunting rifle is not any more or less intrinsically dangerous than a scary looking semiauto. I may not change your mind (although I've changed the mind of many a Brit and Aussie doing this) but all least you will understand and understanding is half the battle.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: TDawgRex

After what you said about the father, I lost my respect for you.


Just cause the father loss his son does NOT mean i should lose my constitutional rights.

screw the father.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: voyger2

How much do you really know about the United States of America?
The people are a fickle thing, but of this make no doubt, there will be no repeal of the Second Amendment. One will see same sex marriages legal in all 50 states long before there is enough support for the repeal of the second amendment.

Amendments to the Constitution are never repealed, ever. It takes another amendment to cancel out the prior amendment, but the original one still will remain in the documents. To get an amendment into law, it first has to be proposed and then supported by 2/3 of the house and senate. At which time any of either house can hold it up in committee and table it. Most are often tabled. Then, for the sake of argument, it gets past that; it has to go to the state and voted on by the public. And if it does not get 3/4s of the states to approve, it fails and dies right there.

The other way would require that 2/3’s of the states call for and approve a Constitutional convention. But here again, it still requires 3/4’s of all of the states to vote on and agree to said amendments.

That means 38 states populations by majority vote, have to agree that it is a good idea to be made into law. So it is not so simple and a losing battle unless one can convince a large number of population to approve said measure.

But there is one other thing that is overlooked. The number of mass shootings, are far and few between, they are not as common as one would state, and yet if you look at the statistics as put out by various groups, there are far more deaths in urban blight areas, or where there is tougher gun control laws than what they want. And in some third world countries, it is far worse than the USA.

The facts are that those who make the point about the mental illness and those who take another’s life in mass shooting are very correct. The last few, there is clear cut evidence of something wrong mentally with the person who pulled the trigger that ended someone’s life. Ask yourself this, what kind of a person does it take to pull a weapon and target a child in a school?

For myself, I will never agree to or vote for any law or amendment that would remove the right to bear weapons. I want that to remain on the table, not to take another’s life, but if need be, to remove a government that has shown to no longer represent me, and I want those in the halls of power to know that. I want the ability, if need be, to pick up a weapon to defend myself, and my family against someone who is intending to break into my home in the middle of the night.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: voyger2
says the person spouting off about dead kids and be fearful of gun owners yeah were the scared ones sure buddy

you seem FEARFUL of children getting killed

you seem FEARFUL of gun owners just because they want to own guns

you really seem FEARFUL of something you obviously have no idea what the hell your talking about

you wanna get rid of mass shooters? stop making them into legends in the media stop giving them what they want(the recognition they never got in life in their deaths) if your gonna do anything with them mandate body shots only in taking them down and use their corpses for medical research in to how and where their brains went wrong ,find out what chemicals or drugs (legal or illegal) were in their systems and what other external factors lead to their actions and find out how to put a stop to it with science not fear and conjecture or opinionated pleas


The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown...H. P. Lovecraft



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: DeadSeraph

You should ask yourself, why do I even need to use a gun?

Pause ...

People leave in fear and because of that more fear they create around them.

Pause again please...

Listen to this fathers voice. Really listen to him. Do you believe in him? ... Do you recognize the truth on his voice?

I'm a little guy from a little country, that doesn't understand how can people live safely, when everyone on the street can have gun and start shooting, just because...

You should ask again, why do you even need a gun?


Why do I even need a gun, in a country where I don't and probably can't have a gun….but I'll answer, anyhow….
Do you have any idea how many more would die here, without a gun?

Because whom you think you're hearing as "the father" may not be the father, and you may not be hearing what people here, hear….

It's called the technological singularity. It was lauded for the lack of chaos, the peace, it would bring us. But everyone's hearing something different, so they can't tell WHOM they are really hearing, in order to INCREASE the chaos…..

I am not a fan of violence, but some have suffered, greatly, and want to make sure they don't suffer anymore…
Respectfully,
Tetra50



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SheopleNation

Unless your ar-15 can shoot down a sattelilte your not going to have much luck when the revolution starts,technology now exceeds your founding fathers best intentions to keep government in check,the next fight will be for your body mind and very soul and they are a hundred years ahead not decades of years ahead of where you think they are.
edit on 28-5-2014 by khnum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: SheopleNation

Unless your ar-15 can shoot down a sattelilte your not going to have much luck when the revolution starts,technology now exceeds your founding fathers best intentions to keep government in check,the next fight will be for your body mind and very soul and they are a hundred years ahead not decades of years ahead of where you think they are.


Thanks for saying that. Terribly true. These issues are recursive,and have played out time and again. It seems to get worse every time…..wish something would happen that would change that.
Tetra
edit on 28-5-2014 by tetra50 because: clarification



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

yeah, they thought that in Vietnam. And Iraq/Afghanistan.

Technology can be mitigated.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: khnum

yeah, they thought that in Vietnam. And Iraq/Afghanistan.

Technology can be mitigated.


Perhaps technology is what's mitigating……
Your post implies technology, if I understood correctly, is stopping a slaughier, rather than making one, no? Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps technology is the cause of slaugher.
Just sayin'….
Tetra50




top topics



 
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join