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.

 

Obama Loves Guns & 2nd Amendment

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


The right to bear arms the constitution DOES NOT DEFINE their type, their look, their magazine capacity, or how many rounds comes out with the pull of a trigger.


Type and look make no damn difference. Magazine capacity,how many rounds comes out with the pull of a trigger doesn't even apply. It's like you forgot muskets were being used at the time the amendment was written. So of course none of that would be defined. The idea of a gun with a magazine is 100 years away and the idea of a machine gun 200 years away.




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: neo96


The right to bear arms the constitution DOES NOT DEFINE their type, their look, their magazine capacity, or how many rounds comes out with the pull of a trigger.


Type and look make no damn difference. Magazine capacity,how many rounds comes out with the pull of a trigger doesn't even apply. It's like you forgot muskets were being used at the time the amendment was written. So of course none of that would be defined. The idea of a gun with a magazine is 100 years away and the idea of a machine gun 200 years away.




Yo look up the definition of INFRINGE.

Then look up DENY.

Then look up DISPARAGE.



edit on 9-7-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Agreed, 100%.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
So tanks, SAMs, rocket launchers, 50 caliber machine guns, armed fighter jets, artillery.As you said you're for ALL guns...Military weaponry shouldn't be in the hands of civilians unless they're part of a well regulated militia. Americans already have the right to buy powerful firearms as a civilian. You want more? that's just being greedy.

Infringe: actively break the terms of(in this case) a law.
The only way to go by that definition is to remove firearms from citizens entirely. Regulating however is not infringement. According to the definition you just told me to look up.
edit on 9-7-2014 by GokuVsSuperman0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
In for a penny In for a pound.

How is the FEDERAL background check not a 4th amendment VIOLATION ?

Anyone ?



Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Apparently I was charged with a crime, tried, and convicted.

Funny thing there never had my day in court.

Neither have million of other American gun owners.

Basically.

I and every other gun owner have to prove our 'innocence' every time we buy a gun.

So much for innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law.
edit on 9-7-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Its not greedy. All we have is one little tiny sliver of cake left, when just 100 years ago we had the entire cake




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0




So tanks, SAMs, rocket launchers, 50 caliber machine guns, armed fighter jets, artillery.As you said you're for ALL guns..


Thanks for the red herring fallacy.

Can't win on substance.

Definitely don't have the constitution on your side.

Whip out the sam's,rocket launcher, fighter jets, and artillery, and tanks.

With exception of the sams ALL ARE LEGAL for us to purchase.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
The idea of a gun with a magazine is 100 years away and the idea of a machine gun 200 years away.


The Girandoni Gravity magazine dates from the 1780s.

Volley guns, the precursor to the repeating firearm, existed from the 15th century and were well known in Colonial times.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
So tanks, SAMs, rocket launchers, 50 caliber machine guns, armed fighter jets, artillery.As you said you're for ALL guns...Military weaponry shouldn't be in the hands of civilians unless they're part of a well regulated militia. Americans already have the right to buy powerful firearms as a civilian. You want more? that's just being greedy.


Civilians can already own tanks, rocket launchers, jet aircraft, .50 caliber machine guns and some artillery pieces.




edit on 9-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
So tanks, SAMs, rocket launchers, 50 caliber machine guns, armed fighter jets, artillery.As you said you're for ALL guns...Military weaponry shouldn't be in the hands of civilians unless they're part of a well regulated militia. Americans already have the right to buy powerful firearms as a civilian. You want more? that's just being greedy.


Civilians can already own tanks, rocket launchers, jet aircraft, .50 caliber machine guns and some artillery pieces.





They can also build their own sams.

Hobby rocketry is big business.

'surface to air missiles' LOL.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
OK, clearly you're not a litigator.


How is the FEDERAL background check not a 4th amendment VIOLATION ?

Well because no one is searching your papers and effects for no apparent reason. Seems you have to buy a firearm in a state with background checks before they search for criminal history and whatnot. You are the one instigating the search through the purchase of a firearm. Unless you go to a gun show, then you'll be fine.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0




Well because no one is searching your papers and effects for no apparent reason


Yeah they are.

As I haven't committed ANY crime WHAT SO EVER.

We have to 'submit' to a 4th amendment violation because of what someone else did.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Notice the 4th amendment doesn't say sh*t about crimes. When someone joins a federal agency with classified materials or enlists in the armed forces they agree to a background search in exchange for the employment. When you buy a gun from a store that does background checks you are agreeing to the search in exchange for the firearm.



Yeah they are.

So the federal government has issued a warrant for the search and seizure of your effects BEFORE you went to go buy a gun. At which case i suggest you get a lawyer. But I'm pretty sure you're just Bullsh*tting.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

In the case of "well regulated", words have a way of changing meaning over time. In the days our constitution was wrote well regulated was a phrase akin to "in proper working order", not regulated by law. In fact, every single fire arm law including the 1934 act are unconstitutional.

www.constitution.org...



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Without wishing to be rude, I must point out a couple of things.

I have read the document which details the rights of citizens of the United States of America, and it has to be one of the most beautiful documents I have ever read. I am not talking about the font it was written in, for I was reading an online version. I am talking about the meaning behind its phraseology, and it's structure.

The specific amendment relating to the ownership of firearms, was placed in that document for ONE main reason. The right of people to bear arms, is expressly present in the document, to ensure that at any time, if the government become burdensome to the people, attempt to dictate to the people how their lives shall be run, attempt to infringe the rest of the rights laid down in other amendments, OR the right to bear arms, the people may rise up and not be outgunned in all particulars, if they should have to come into conflict with the government.

The government have warplanes, aircraft carriers, battleships, legions of personnel, armed and armoured vehicles, cannons, rocket launchers, mini guns, fifty cal sniper rifles, massive ordnance air blast bombs, and nuclear weapons at their disposal, and that is just a small list of the equipment that could be bought to bare against a justly angry people, in the event of a rift between people and government.

In short, the people of the US are already at a disadvantage in key states, and it is vital that States which retain a full and unquestioned right to bear arms, continue to do so, in case it becomes necessary that those states become the rally point for an armed and just resistance against the government.

If you fail to understand the purpose of the second amendment, then you will continue to make the same mistake, time after time, and that is to believe in limiting the right to bear arms. In my country, we have no such right except on paper. In yours, the action is still matched to the document. In my country, making a stand is futile because to do so breaks the law, and we have no defence from unjust law because to own arms enough to force a government to back down, is another offence. In your country, you have the right to own arms, and fight for your freedom, AND as a secondary issue, protect yourselves and give your community security by the force of your arms.

Failure to take control of both your security, and your freedom away from your government by force of arms, over successive generations, is the only thing that allows thinking like yours to come to the fore now. Frankly, I think it shows a distinct lack of historical awareness, to suggest that a musket has any more or less significance than does an AR-15, or a field gun. In essence, all those things as they pertain to the constitution of your country, have the precise same meaning and use, although their deployment being advisable is obviously scenario dependent. It is a little odd that I should have to explain this, coming from a nation where I have no such right in reality.

Perhaps it is that very thing, which makes me believe that the most important words written, outside the covers of the Holy Bible, are the second amendment of the constitution of the United States of America?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
The specific amendment relating to the ownership of firearms, was placed in that document for ONE main reason. The right of people to bear arms, is expressly present in the document, to ensure that at any time, if the government become burdensome to the people, attempt to dictate to the people how their lives shall be run, attempt to infringe the rest of the rights laid down in other amendments, OR the right to bear arms, the people may rise up and not be outgunned in all particulars, if they should have to come into conflict with the government.


It really is that simple.

The government becomes tyrannical? You forcibly remove them.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
A very thoughtful reply. I liked it.
Especially this:



Perhaps it is that very thing, which makes me believe that the most important words written, outside the covers of the Holy Bible, are the second amendment of the constitution of the United States of America?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...


School shooting are not up. Better check your math again.

As more CCW permit holders are out and about, crime has dropped.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...


School shooting are not up. Better check your math again.

As more CCW permit holders are out and about, crime has dropped.


Even if school shootings were up.....

Would we abolish the First Amendment if there were a sudden rash of cases of people shouting 'FIRE!' in a theater?
Uh oh... I just gave the feds an idea. Watch out for a rash of people shouting fire in theaters.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Obama Loves Guns & 2nd Amendment

Okay, that was funny. Thanks for the morning chuckle.
Why didn't you put this in the LOL forum??



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join