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.

 

Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

page: 40
20
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Great, so 18th century arms it is.

I'll call my representative and inform them to craft legislation defining all firearms made after the 18th century to be Specifically designed for military use.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

lol, i see you trying to bait me into calling you an idiot, so you can run to the mods...

sorry Jr, not gonna happen..

you're being disingenuous again....

"well regulated" at the time the constitution was written, meant something different than "well regulated" means now....to swap the meaning of the wording as used then, for the meaning as used now, would completely change the amendment. so you see, it doesn't work that way, and we both know it..

so stop with the idiotic jumping to conclusions, and using absolutes based on simpleton logic..



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Great, so 18th century arms it is.

I'll call my representative and inform them to craft legislation defining all firearms made after the 18th century to be Specifically designed for military use.


So I assume that means that you'll also tell your representative that you no longer will be using the computer to use your freedom of speech as the FF could not have envisioned that method of communication and that he should draft legislation to ensure that the freedom of speech and of the press only apply to 18th century means of communication?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Great, so 18th century arms it is.


If that were the Supreme Court's ruling then we would not even be having this conversation.

Try reading their decision again like a big person.



edit on 24-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok


You cannot have it both ways, either the constitution is stagnant static and constant, where all definition is frozen in time, or it changes based on the time.

Which is it?

The Right to Bear Arms is just that. It is not defined as the Arms of the times. It is Arms, period.
There is no need for your convoluted idea of a "living document" to have this, as the term "Arms" is already defined.



originally posted by: HauntWok
Either congress has the right to regulate and specify the arms proscribed to the militia, or only those in use at the time of the amendments adoption are acceptable by definition of the age.

The statute you provided states very clearly when this happens. Yet, you willingly omit this.

Please, get your crap straight.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Oh your conservatives are working on that with net neutrality.

I'm sure that it will happen soon enough. Cause to conservatives computers are of the devil.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Please indicate where it has ever been said that people who own a gun have the "God-given right" to shoot and kill their family?

I understand you are upset about this incident, but using it as a spring board for your anti-gun rhetoric is deplorable!

Your anger should be directed at the people who commit the crime, not the tool they chose to use.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

you seem to be using telecommunications devices for
exercising your first amendment rights that was
not created or invented in 1776.


edit on 24/7/2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

I don't know why y'all are complaining to me it was you guys who said the constitution was rigid and didn't evolve with the times.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

You compare taking liberties to apply certain things to what you want, to applying "Arms" to the times as what again?????

WOW, you Progressives really never cease to amaze me and others as well.

Gotta love how you have to basically resort to the Alinsky model, to make anything fit your stance.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Great, so 18th century arms it is.

I'll call my representative and inform them to craft legislation defining all firearms made after the 18th century to be Specifically designed for military use.



Lamborn Doug Congressman
lamborn.house.gov
2 Google reviews
1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd
Colorado Springs, CO
(719) 520-0055
Office of Congressman Mike Coffman
www.coffman.house.gov
Google+ page
9220 Kimmer Dr #220
Lone Tree, CO
(720) 283-9772
Congressman Ed Perlmutter
www.perlmutter.house.gov
Google+ page
12600 W Colfax Ave #400
Lakewood, CO
(303) 274-7944

here are their addresses and phone numbers.

I would love to hear back from you what they said.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
So, lets get this straight.

Psychosis, schizophrenia, bi polar disorder, sure, give em a gun! No problem!

Attempted murder? Sure here's your gun.

Spousal abuse? No sweat, want a full auto?

So what does it take?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

As it stands, Mr. Hysterical, anyone found guilty of a Felony is already now designated as a prohibited owner.

What you want is to remove rights, or infringe further, due to maybe and what-ifs.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
So, lets get this straight.

Psychosis, schizophrenia, bi polar disorder, sure, give em a gun! No problem!

Attempted murder? Sure here's your gun.

Spousal abuse? No sweat, want a full auto?

So what does it take?


current laws which are not being enforced include no
weapons sales to felons, domestic assault, adjudicated
mentally defectives, users of addictive drugs.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
So, lets get this straight.

Psychosis, schizophrenia, bi polar disorder, sure, give em a gun! No problem!

Attempted murder? Sure here's your gun.

Spousal abuse? No sweat, want a full auto?

So what does it take?


you have several different issues jumbled up in your mind/thinking processes simultaneously.

people who attempt murder and have domestic violence already cannot legally purchase guns.

same with the adjudicated mental illnesses.

it takes enforcing the current laws, which I gave you several
links several pages ago to satisfy your quest for denying ignorance.

it is currently a felony for a felon to attempt to but a gun.
in 2012 100,000 felons attempted to buy a gun,
and only 2 of them were prosecuted.
does this sound like current laws are being enforced to you?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirited75
it is currently a felony for a felon to attempt to but a gun.
in 2012 100,000 felons attempted to buy a gun,
and only 2 of them were prosecuted.
does this sound like current laws are being enforced to you?


Nope. It sounds like certain people do not care if felons want guns. Maybe these certain government types want them to play real life first person shooter games like the original Poster is fetishizing about.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'd agree with you except that the mass shooters got their guns legally.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

NOT one did so. They were either stolen or purchased claiming sanity on the Form 44s,the purchase was FOR a crime as well.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
I'd agree with you except that the mass shooters got their guns legally.


The one in your Original Post retained his despite having a domestic violence history which means law enforcement ignored already existing laws.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

they got their guns by breaking the law.

exactly the same way the majority of people get
their cannabis sativa in America----they break the law.


edit on 25/7/2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
20
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join