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: 26
43
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

“We have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government,” Vaughn told British GQ. “It’s not about duck hunting; it’s about the ability of the individual. It’s the same reason we have freedom of speech.





Banning guns is like banning forks in an attempt to stop making people fat.” -


Vaughn.




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: macman



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.


What's real funny is that the only thing I have said is that I am willing to look at what is produced and discuss it from there, leaving me the option to outright reject and oppose it. And yet you guys are taking it to the extreme level, making outrageous claims and spiting out logical fallacies like its going out of style.

Again, drama queens. Playing the victim like someone is stepping on your rights.

I don't believe that we can just say "shall not be infringed" and leave it at that. Do we not have to define what "arms" are? Do we not have to draw a line and say that some things are absolutely dangerous and should not be for sale at the local gun shop?

It seems reasonable to want to have that discussion. There must be a line drawn somewhere and anyone who simply says "shall not be infringed", and that's it, is delusional.

Like I said earlier, and it's not hyperbole, you are a bigger threat to my 2nd amendment right because when the grown ups sit down to discuss the definitions and lines that must be drawn, you completely shut down the discussion because you are stuck at "shall not be infringed". And, you also disenfranchise many of us that support the 2nd amendment, but aren't stuck in the dark ages and realize that lines must be drawn and a conversation must take place.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
you also disenfranchise many of us that support the 2nd amendment, but aren't stuck in the dark ages and realize that lines must be drawn and a conversation must take place.


Let's be honest here, you may support some gun rights, but you don't support the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


What's real funny is that the only thing I have said is that I am willing to look at what is produced and discuss it from there, leaving me the option to outright reject and oppose it. And yet you guys are taking it to the extreme level, making outrageous claims and spiting out logical fallacies like its going out of style.

Great....you are willing to compromise on your Rights. I guess that makes you a self proclaimed intellectual. Maybe you and the other smart people like McCain and others should get together and capitulate some more on rights. Because after all....it is "common sense".


originally posted by: introvert
Again, drama queens. Playing the victim like someone is stepping on your rights.

Ahhh, restriction of rights is stepping on rights.


originally posted by: introvert
I don't believe that we can just say "shall not be infringed" and leave it at that.

Spoken like any Progressive I have ever come across.
The 2nd is extremely clear.
It is sad that you can't get behind one of the Rights outlined by the documents.
What other Rights are you willing to allow restrictions on?



originally posted by: introvert
Do we not have to define what "arms" are?

Already done.



originally posted by: introvert
Do we not have to draw a line and say that some things are absolutely dangerous and should not be for sale at the local gun shop?

Ah, so you are willing to take a hard stance on this, but not your Right. Interesting. Typical and sad, but interesting.



originally posted by: introvert
It seems reasonable to want to have that discussion. There must be a line drawn somewhere and anyone who simply says "shall not be infringed", and that's it, is delusional.

Yes, because it is "common sense" to draw a line on the dangerous of dangerous firearms that the people can't/shouldn't have.


originally posted by: introvert
Like I said earlier, and it's not hyperbole, you are a bigger threat to my 2nd amendment right because when the grown ups sit down to discuss the definitions and lines that must be drawn, you completely shut down the discussion because you are stuck at "shall not be infringed". And, you also disenfranchise many of us that support the 2nd amendment, but aren't stuck in the dark ages and realize that lines must be drawn and a conversation must take place.

Yes, blah blah blah....dark ages...big threat...disenfranchise....You have hit almost every talking point. You do deserve a cookie or a medal...........but not both.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Well I mean, that is just "common sense" and "reasonable".
The term is FUD.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Answer

Well I mean, that is just "common sense" and "reasonable".
The term is FUD.


I know. There are 2 D's in Fudd, though.

As long as nobody is trying to ban the guns that THEY like to shoot, they're all for "sensible" restrictions.

They fail to learn from history. Unreasonable actions always start as "reasonable" solutions.


edit on 6/2/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   


but aren't stuck in the dark ages and realize that lines must be drawn and a conversation must take place.


Yo the line was drawn OVER 200 hundred years ago.

The constitution is that line.

That was created to keep the government in check.

That was created to keep the people in check.

Because they had the conversation.

They knew what it was to live under despotism.

They knew what it was like begging the French, and the Dutch for 'arms' to fight against a tyrannical leader.

So in their wisdom they drew that line that has endured for over 200 years.

And boldly declared SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

All the 'grown ups' know this.

Those that hide behind government clearly don't.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
on the other hand
in this day and age there are weapons that out mode the individual gun
one MODERN weapon that does this is unarmed mexican welfare recipients
let in through a deliberately porous border
all 35 million of them - thats quite an invasion brought by the same government that keeps using the distraction of gun rights

all while focusing on having the old bows and arrows taken away

bitter clingers won't gt it
processors are too slow
edit on Tueam6b20156America/Chicago27 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


you do have to keep the guns, but if you don't keep your head up in the corners
you WILL get creamed anyway
edit on Tueam6b20156America/Chicago39 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



but aren't stuck in the dark ages and realize that lines must be drawn and a conversation must take place.


Yo the line was drawn OVER 200 hundred years ago.

The constitution is that line.

That was created to keep the government in check.

That was created to keep the people in check.

Because they had the conversation.

They knew what it was to live under despotism.

They knew what it was like begging the French, and the Dutch for 'arms' to fight against a tyrannical leader.

So in their wisdom they drew that line that has endured for over 200 years.

And boldly declared SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

All the 'grown ups' know this.

Those that hide behind government clearly don't.


Hey, the Brits only wanted "reasonable" (all-encompassing) restrictions to keep "dangerous" (all) guns out of the hands of "the wrong people" (our founding fathers).
edit on 6/2/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Do you support a "common sense" discussion on a updating of the other rights as well?

Usually when people talk like this about "drawing lines" it leads to "do we need nuclear weapons?" which is ridiculous.

However many say "stop and frisk" is common sense as well, or maybe we should allow searches for all vehicles that are pulled over regardless of the originating violation, after all one law has already been broken.

How about we allow the right to assemble, but only with two weeks advance notice and organizers must pay for security. Also, there must be one security officer per ten protesters.

These are "common sense" changes that could and should be made, right?

Be careful of the rights you give away, especially the rights of others.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
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".
You're right, I think some reasonable restrictions on who can own a firearm is something that should be discussed. Not every person is capable of owning and operating a firearm safely.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: introvert
you also disenfranchise many of us that support the 2nd amendment, but aren't stuck in the dark ages and realize that lines must be drawn and a conversation must take place.


Let's be honest here, you may support some gun rights, but you don't support the 2nd Amendment.


No, I support the 2nd amendment.

We have to recognize that the founders could not have foreseen the future of weaponry, and the simplicity of the 2nd amendment shows that. If the founders were to write the 2nd amendment today, it would still grant the right to bear arms, but would also include some guidelines and basic "rules".

The real beauty is that the founder knew the constitution would need to be changed, added to or modified and included the process to do so within the constitution.

This isn't 1776 and we are not running around defending ourselves from mobs of hostile indians. That's the context in which the 2nd amendment was written. Now it's 2015, technology and weaponry has changed, and we have the means to set some basic guidelines while still respecting the 2nd amendment.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: introvert

Do you support a "common sense" discussion on a updating of the other rights as well?

Usually when people talk like this about "drawing lines" it leads to "do we need nuclear weapons?" which is ridiculous.

However many say "stop and frisk" is common sense as well, or maybe we should allow searches for all vehicles that are pulled over regardless of the originating violation, after all one law has already been broken.

How about we allow the right to assemble, but only with two weeks advance notice and organizers must pay for security. Also, there must be one security officer per ten protesters.

These are "common sense" changes that could and should be made, right?

Be careful of the rights you give away, especially the rights of others.


If we really want to fight crime, we should do away with the 4th Amendment. Then the police can hassle and search whoever they want. Surely they'll create... I mean find plenty of criminals that way.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

But you aren't respecting the 2nd by restricting it, or "reinterpreting" it.

Founders didn't know a thing about Twitter, but free speech is still free speech.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: introvert
you also disenfranchise many of us that support the 2nd amendment, but aren't stuck in the dark ages and realize that lines must be drawn and a conversation must take place.


Let's be honest here, you may support some gun rights, but you don't support the 2nd Amendment.


No, I support the 2nd amendment.

We have to recognize that the founders could not have foreseen the future of weaponry, and the simplicity of the 2nd amendment shows that. If the founders were to write the 2nd amendment today, it would still grant the right to bear arms, but would also include some guidelines and basic "rules".

The real beauty is that the founder knew the constitution would need to be changed, added to or modified and included the process to do so within the constitution.

This isn't 1776 and we are not running around defending ourselves from mobs of hostile indians. That's the context in which the 2nd amendment was written. Now it's 2015, technology and weaponry has changed, and we have the means to set some basic guidelines while still respecting the 2nd amendment.



Clearly you don't understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Do us all a favor and refrain from trying to be any sort of voice for the 2nd Amendment. You'll do more harm than good.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc




If you ask to see someone, they automatically file you as a mentally unstable and report it to the authorities. Who in turn show up at you house and "ask" to search it.


Could you explain this a bit further, for me?

I've not heard anything about this. Given that the VA is a pet peeve of mine, it kind of surprises me that I missed this.

I don't disbelieve you, it's me I'm amazed at...for missing it.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yeah I mean......the 2nd clearly states this. That "certain" people can't own firearms..

By certain I guess you mean like Blacks? Maybe Chinese?



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: macman



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.


What's real funny is that the only thing I have said is that I am willing to look at what is produced and discuss it from there, leaving me the option to outright reject and oppose it. And yet you guys are taking it to the extreme level, making outrageous claims and spiting out logical fallacies like its going out of style.

Again, drama queens. Playing the victim like someone is stepping on your rights.

I don't believe that we can just say "shall not be infringed" and leave it at that. Do we not have to define what "arms" are? Do we not have to draw a line and say that some things are absolutely dangerous and should not be for sale at the local gun shop?

It seems reasonable to want to have that discussion. There must be a line drawn somewhere and anyone who simply says "shall not be infringed", and that's it, is delusional.

Like I said earlier, and it's not hyperbole, you are a bigger threat to my 2nd amendment right because when the grown ups sit down to discuss the definitions and lines that must be drawn, you completely shut down the discussion because you are stuck at "shall not be infringed". And, you also disenfranchise many of us that support the 2nd amendment, but aren't stuck in the dark ages and realize that lines must be drawn and a conversation must take place.


Certainly, as long as you acquiesce that there must be a line drawn somewhere were free speech is concerned and that there are some books that the government must not allow to be sold in the bookshop.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

No, I support the 2nd amendment.



Clearly you don't understand the term "support" nor the "2nd Amendment".

So no.....no you don't.

You support a version of it where infringement is allowed, because stuff....and things.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yeah I mean......the 2nd clearly states this. That "certain" people can't own firearms..

By certain I guess you mean like Blacks? Maybe Chinese?


The first gun control laws in the US were designed to keep blacks form owning firearms--gun control has it's very roots in racism.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join