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.

 

Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

page: 25
43
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

You can't be for the 2nd, and yet for more restrictions.

If that be your game, I suggest you go and research what a FUD is.


I'm all for free speech, as long as what you say is pre-approved by the government first.




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Answer

OK Sir Richard.

Stay on topic.

You further state…


Then we have the smith make the statement that firearms have machined receivers. That statement isn't true.

Wrong again. All firearms receivers have machine operations performed on them at some point. This may be accomplished "without power tools", but I wouldn't recommend it.

By the way, I'm an ex machinist and gun smith. It was more a hobby back in my day before assembling a firearm in my home workshop was made illegal.

Back then it was allowable to purchase receiver kits and parts at gun shows and thru the mail. Now that era is gone, whittled away by the same politicians that want to legislate everyones guns away, one 'piece' at a time.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

GO and research the 2nd. What "Arms" mean is the key to you answering your own question.

The 2nd is very simple. "Shall not be infringed" is about a clean and easy as it gets.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: thefallenone

Hardly paranoid more ACCURATE would be the word I think of here..maoistrebelnews.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


It's actually quite easy to create something out of what you have around the house that can be used to fire rounds.

Do you make the rounds that easy from "what you have around the house", too?



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


Im all for a discussion on things that seem reasonable, or common sense. Why are you having such a hard to comprehending? A discussion does not mean I will simply go along with it. I say it over and over again, yet you still don't grasp?

I comprehend very well thank you.
You can discuss all you want. But, your interpretation is incorrect.


originally posted by: introvert

Ok, I don't have a clue what you're even talking about. We are having a discussion, one in which you have already proven that your logic is severely flawed, and you have to resort to accusing me of using talking points?

Yes, talking points.


originally posted by: introvert
Like I said, it is discussions like this that give the anti-2nd ammunition because the pro-2nd side has a hard time intelligently articulating their point and have to resort to ad hominum attacks and false accusations.

So, because you don't understand a simple statement like, "Shall not be infringed", I am the unintelligent one.
It has been articulated here by several others, over and over again.
YOU just refuse to take it in.


originally posted by: introvert
You, my friend, are a bigger threat to my 2nd amendment rights than any gun-grabbing liberal.


That's too funny. My working with one of the nations leading NFA rights groups and their wanting to work with me and my business kind of leads you back to your talking points and inaccuracies.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

And restricted to a certain time, space, topic and medium of delivery.

Ohh, and the amount of free speech needs to be limited as well.

And you need to have a background check first...and that is just to speak in private. If you want to speak in public, you need to take a Govt approved class and apply for a license.

Moronic.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScientificRailgun




In fact, he's got a decent stance and form.

Below par. He's leaning slightly back instead of forward into his stance and the butt of the stock is too high on the shoulder.


That's what happens when someone told you 5 minutes ago how to hold it and you're just posing for a photo op to convince the handful of "middle-ground" voters that you're not as anti-gun as the NRA says.

I bet he missed the clay target, too.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

GO and research the 2nd. What "Arms" mean is the key to you answering your own question.

The 2nd is very simple. "Shall not be infringed" is about a clean and easy as it gets.
Oh I see, now. That government doesn't call certain things "Arms" and they get a free pass to keep it out of a citizen's hand.

Perfect logic, 10/10.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You don't think the average joe couldn't make a Sten type gun based on the Palladin press book?
Never heard of a zip gun?
Not a very knowledgable smith then.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Ohhh, very cleaver. Attempt to push the Anti-Govt button.

Here is the issue. A nuclear warhead is not an "Arm".

I will award you 2 points for being clever.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

...It worked in England...



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




I'm all for free speech, as long as what you say is pre-approved by the government first.


Ditto.

They need to go through a federal back ground check too, and if they punched someone in the nose too they get denied to use free speech.
edit on 2-6-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Ohhh, very cleaver. Attempt to push the Anti-Govt button.

Here is the issue. A nuclear warhead is not an "Arm".

I will award you 2 points for being clever.
So what, or who, defines what an "arm" is?

I know the definition of "arms", by the way, I'm asking who has the authority to decide what falls under that definition and what doesn't. I think it's a reasonable (Heh) question to ask.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun




Oh I see, now. That government doesn't call certain things "Arms" and they get a free pass to keep it out of a citizen's hand.


I honestly don't give a crap what the government calls things. Because they get it wrong so many times.

They can't use the term machine gun because those are heaviliy regulated so they used the made up term 'assault weapon. That defines 'arms' by how they look not on how they function.

That same government then unilaterally declared pressure cookers, and pipe bombs 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Hell even it's own government agencies like the BATF make up there own rules, and reclassify crap on there own.

Excellent example of this is smoke 'grenades' that produce nothing more than smoke are now called 'explosive' devices.

Hell that is what modern day 'gun control' has devolved to calling things something they are not.

Primarliy to sceer them masses in to supporting tyranny of the 'few'.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Actually, the other Obama picture is more realistic !!


Thank you for showing just how out of touch from reality the far right is, if you believe a photoshopped picture is more realistic than the actual picture, what other lies have you swallowed and digested as truth?


My God.

It was a joke.

At least the "Right" can have some fun without being so dreadfully serious


And it's not like Obama hasn't ever lied



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I think someone should photo shop a golf club, and reverse it, and have smoke, and 'Pew,Pew,Pew'

Coming out the end.


Now that wold be 'realistic'.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Answer

...It worked in England...


Yep, people hardly ever get shot anymore! What a victory!

Now they just get beaten, stabbed, bludgeoned, raped, and robbed with no way to fight back but hey, just as long as nobody is getting shot... that's the important part.

My favorite is when the UK members of ATS want to talk about "gun violence" in the US while ignoring the soaring levels of violence in their own country. It's easy to win an argument when you only focus on one aspect and deflect the rest.
edit on 6/2/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Never said who gets to define this. It has been defined for some time now. It is driven by the Military, so yes the Govt.

Now......back on topic of the Govt further restricting the Rights of the individual and you being okay with some as they are "common sense" and "reasonable".



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So what, or who, defines what an "arm" is?

I know the definition of "arms", by the way, I'm asking who has the authority to decide what falls under that definition and what doesn't. I think it's a reasonable (Heh) question to ask.


BEAR ARMS MUTHA#AH!!!




new topics




 
43
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join