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: 38
43
<< 35  36  37    39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer



Stop tap dancing around it and say what you mean.


If any way you were referring to me, I believe I've been quite clear on my stance. I don't have a problem with citizens owning machine guns, or even tanks. Personally, I'd enjoy an afternoon with a m1919 very much.

All I'd like to see is something more concrete set in stone that clarifies our right and to finally stop the debate/push for more restrictions dead in it's tracks.




posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

Witness the fact of arms vs cannon being known at the time.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

As do we all,it's only logical.
But Here in Colorado they tend to be bias to the female so the weapons may be taken as a protective measure.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Here we go again...NOW they want to track them..threepercenternation.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Here we go again...NOW they want to track them..threepercenternation.com...


This bill has been submitted to congress before and has never passed. It's not going to happen. This is nothing more than doom porn for the uninformed.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: diggindirt

Well I am all for convicted Domestic Abusers having their guns confiscated.

But only after they have their day in court and an opportunity to mount a defense..

So...Mixed on that.



"Domestic abuse" is a misdemeanor in most states. Are there any other misdemeanors you are willing to give up your rights for? maybe give up the right to leave your house if convicted of jaywalking?

Domestic abuse is the most abused part of the legal system as far as I can tell. There are a number of genuine, and tragic, cases, but the greater majority appear to be revenge by pissed off partners, and nothing more. Personally, I believe the accuser should do the same jail time the accused would have done if he or she is found "not guilty". that chance might cut down on a lot of the foolishness the statutes are being used for, and give more impact to the genuine cases.

So, would you be willing to give up the right to leave your house if your partner got pissed off and accused you of jaywalking in revenge, with the objective of confining you to your home?




I agree with you that the majority of cases seem to be when partners get riled at one another. (My knowledge of the issue comes mainly from working with abused women to find safe havens and talking with those within the system. I believe the system is widely abused but I haven't a clue as to how to make it perfect.)
Our local judge was influenced by an incident which occurred prior to his taking the office of judge. In that case a woman went to the local PD to complain that she had been beaten and threatened. The cops blew her off and sent her on her way. The very next day she came back to the PD but this time the husband followed her and shot her just as she entered the building. That incident dramatically changed the way the PD and all other local law enforcement handled domestic violence complaints. Better to be safe than sorry.
However, in the case to which I referred, the use of a firearm was the origin of the EPO. When the wife attempted to leave the residence to get away from the drunken, drug-crazed husband, he grabbed a gun and shot at her. He is a real piece of work, one that in my opinion the world would be a better place if she had just put him out of her misery the first time he threatened to kill her family if she tried to leave.
In our county the judge usually grants the confiscation request along with the EPO. If firearms are actually used or threats made like, "I'm going to blow your head off." he will order the firearms to be held for the duration of the DVO.
I'm not for arbitrarily taking anyone's rights. One of the issues I have with courts and domestic violence is the very term: domestic violence. It sets up yet another "class" of people. Perpetrating violence on another person is against the law. There are mountains of laws concerning assault so why do we need laws aimed at our domicile?
Our legislature recently spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about domestic violence laws and how broadly the term "domestic" can be applied.
A dear friend of mine who is deep in the legal system is of the opinion that the domestic violence class of laws were the precursor to the hate crimes laws. Expansion of government by creating whole new classes of offenses designed to generate business for the system.
So, to saunter back to the topic of regulations and their effects---a member of the Kentucky Supreme Court once put it to me this way: Any regulation promulgated by government is a curb on some type of behavior intended to reduce freedom. So yeah, I think anytime the government writes up new regulations, they are simply broadening their power at our expense.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Then the attack on ammo sales online..thehill.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Another bill that was introduced in years past and will never see the light of day.

Rest easy my friend.

edit on 3-6-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

These never go anywhere I know,but with the rampant PC garbage I am at war with,rest is sometimes difficult.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Answer



Stop tap dancing around it and say what you mean.


All I'd like to see is something more concrete set in stone that clarifies our right and to finally stop the debate/push for more restrictions dead in it's tracks.



There is nothing, no definition, that will do that, no matter how specific. The reason for that is that gun-grabbers are constantly on the prowl for loopholes, ways to circumvent what is already clearly written. They can, and will, muddy the waters to whatever degree they find necessary to try and ram the knife home through a chink in the armor - however small that chink may be.

I present this very thread as evidence of that contention.

What is already written is already very clear, and certainly clear enough for a child to comprehend. Any incomprehension therefore is either willful, or accomplished by an intellect low enough that they should in no way be dabbling in political matters.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

That's pretty much my way of thinking.

There are already laws against murder and assault - how does "hate" make a crime already on the book more criminal? How does it make that crime any more unpleasant? Crime is crime. Murder is murder, assault is assault, and both are already illegal. Neither is pleasant, not even in their "best" forms. .. and I have never heard of a "like crime" - crimes invlove some degree of hate and animosity, or they would not be committed. As you observe, that can be carried over into domestic situations. What's a cop gonna do? say "ah well, it's not domestic - turn 'em loose to go at it some more Harv."? It's a ridiculous notion.

The rampant abuse of the system by women just trying to retaliate is uncalled for. My wife is particularly adamant about that. She actually WAS abused by a former spouse. We're talking broken and crushed bones, facial reconstruction surgery, at one point even a broken back that kept her in a wheelchair for a few years, and still gives her trouble to this day. It always will - permanent damage was done. It makes her furious to see women abusing the system to cry "domestic violence" where none actually occurred. In her estimation, it "cheapens" the legitimate cases to the point that they are questioned more than perhaps they should be, and sometimes allowed to go unchecked rather than convict an innocent.

That is why I think that a woman making such allegations ought to serve the same time that the accused would have served if he is found not guilty. If they're going to do it, they'd damned well better mean it.

Now, in cases where an out of control spouse or partner (or stranger or neighbor, for that matter) has already made threats or attempts to use a firearm in the commission of an assault against an unwarranted target, then he SHOULD be disarmed for the good of all - and incarcerated on top of that. I don't believe it ought to be a matter of routine in an ex parte order, however.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

I think I have seen that one.

But as we have said before facts don't matter, feelings do.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

No, it's not very clear at all. You've come to your own conclusion on how it is interpreted, and others do the same. As we can tell from this very thread, even those of us in the pro-2nd crowd disagree on what it means to varying degrees of some sort.




What is already written is already very clear, and certainly clear enough for a child to comprehend. Any incomprehension therefore is either willful, or accomplished by an intellect low enough that they should in no way be dabbling in political matters.



It is comments like this that give fuel to those that would want to restrict the 2nd amendment. Coming to the debate with an attitude that says "this is my opinion on the 2nd amendment, and anyone who does not see it my way is stupid and shouldn't be part of the debate", does not make people such as yourself look very intelligent, nor should you represent the rest of us within the debate.

Very arrogant and elitist point of view.


edit on 4-6-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: diggindirt

Well I am all for convicted Domestic Abusers having their guns confiscated.

But only after they have their day in court and an opportunity to mount a defense..

So...Mixed on that.



"Domestic abuse" is a misdemeanor in most states. Are there any other misdemeanors you are willing to give up your rights for? maybe give up the right to leave your house if convicted of jaywalking?



Then that is an issue with the justice system that needs to be remedied. We shouldn't look to declaw it on the back-end.

Otherwise, there are two issues here..

(1) Whether or not the justice system is biased to operate in a knee-jerk fashion when Domestic Abuse is alleged and whether or not the average outcome and ruling is justified.

(2) Whether those that are legitimately guilty of repeated significant violence toward their loved ones are predisposed toward having moments of irrational rage and violence and should be permitted to own guns...and whether those guns put family members at higher risk of being murdered.

According to Justice Department stats, guns were used to kill over 2/3rds in spouse on spouse homicide. You can always argue that other weapons are available, but we all know that there is a higher chance of survival and escaping the confrontation with less effective weapons ...knife, screw-driver, fists...not to go all morbidly imaginative.

On the "jaywalking" thing...It is a determination made about a predilection for violence...not the legal tier of the offense.

Again...I am all for sorting out the justice system and no guns should be confiscated without thorough adjudication involving the defendant having the opportunity to launch a full rebuttal of accusations and charges.

But if someone is regularly being violent inside their home it's a good idea to take away their firearms.


edit on 4-6-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Sunwolf
As a former Smith,you should know better:How to make an AK out of a shovel.


www.northeastshooters.com...!?p=2695046&viewfull=1#post2695046

Could I do it?Yes.

That link is misleading."How to make an AK out of a shovel" (with a machine shop, including but not limited to a sheet metal brake, mill, lathe, measuring tools, "pre manufactured barrel kit" and at least journey man machinist skills).

You could do it, show me. And the ammo you made from dirt in your garden.


FYI...There are numerous build parties in SOCAL ...a bunch of guys get together bend the flats,drill for the rivets,etc.The reason they have build parties is because one guy has all the necessary tools in his garage.There are a lot of retired or out of work machinists in SOCAL.Thanks to China.Could I do it?Yes!I already have a couple.Right now I`m busy bedding an 03a3 and after that an old 03.I`m not a smith but those operations for an AK are not beyond me.


As for ammunition my ancestors kept their rifles running with match heads for powder.

Hey,it`s not that difficult the filipinos make 1911s with a file under palm trees.

calguns.net...

What a dummy. FYI, I wasn't talking to people with any skill (obviously required to build that garage AK).

Why don't you just tell everyone about your little arms factory parties, too? The idea is to keep that stuff secret, number one…

and two… keep it secret.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


so by all means keep pushing these emotionally based arguments ,and we will keep inventing ways and means to circumvent your legislation using technology and ingenuity

By all means, I wasn't directing my remarks to true patriots, those are even fewer than "average joe garage gun factory enthusiasts".

So, besides getting my stance wrong, you front yourself off on the internet (??).



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

Then the attack on ammo sales online..thehill.com...





buyers would still be able to complete an Internet sale, but would need to present a photo I.D. in-person at an authorized dealer before the shipment can be made.


Again...seems reasonable..
James Homes in Colorado?...The theater shooter?


Holmes also bought 3,000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3,000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet.


vs. this



On June 25, less than a month before the shooting, Holmes emailed an application to join a gun club in Byers, Colorado. The owner, Glenn Rotkovich, called him several times throughout the following days to invite him to a mandatory orientation, but could only reach his answering machine. Due to the nature of Holmes' voice mail, which he described as "bizarre, freaky", "guttural, spoken with a deep voice, incoherent and rambling", Rotkovich instructed his staff to inform him if Holmes showed up, though Holmes neither appeared at the gun range nor called back.


en.wikipedia.org...

There is a value to non-digital communications. I trust a gun dealer more than I do paypal to determine if someone is out of their mind.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: intrptr
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?


Of course.

But rather than write a treatise on how to arm yourself with a shiny new gummint-issued weapon, complete with purty rounds of ammo and even the carriage equipment using only a Bic pen, a rubber band, and 3 cotton balls, I'll just state my opinion that the "build yer own crap in your basement" aspect of the thread has probably run it's course.

Basics are you arm yourself just well enough to kill the other guy and take his shiny crap for your own. been done for thousands of years, is still done today, and will still be being done tomorrow. Human nature never changes.

How you gonna prevent that? Disarm "the other guys" too? Gummint ain't gonna stand for THAT! Never happen. "Disarmament" is doomed to failure. No way to accomplish it as long as there are humans.

If they find you at home, you already lost. Thats was my point to you in that other thread you made about the cops surrounding your abode looking for your brother.

Blaze of glory, huh?

I prefer hit and run, he who fights and runs away, lives to fight anther day. You can't win by drying in a horrific fire like Waco, SLA or MOVE, you survive by not being found and hitting the enemy where they ain't.

I'd go all guerrilla on you but I know you know this and have selected the die in bunker approach…



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



Again...seems reasonable.. James Homes in Colorado?...The theater shooter?

Have any proof that he shot 3,000 rounds in the theater?

He killed 12 and wounded 58 people.
He could have accomplished this using 200 rounds... easily.

So he could have purchased those rounds in a store like Walmart, at a gun show or through a private purchase.

As if the internet was the only way a mass shooter can pull off a crime.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5


buyers would still be able to complete an Internet sale, but would need to present a photo I.D. in-person at an authorized dealer before the shipment can be made.


Again...seems reasonable..


It might seem that way, but it actually isn't. Your local Walmart or sporting goods store generally does NOT check IDs for ammunition purchases as long as you obviously meet the age requirement. Requiring it for online purchases and having a requirement to ship to a local dealer is kind of pointless when someone can walk into their local store and drop $75 on a 250 round box of 9mm, for instance, no questions asked and no ID required. Maybe if the buyer is a total, complete and obvious nut job the dealer might spot it, but its far from certain.

The only practical purpose it serves is to shut down the online ammunition dealers, because once you pass that requirement, it will no longer be cheaper or more convenient to buy online. The local dealers handling those shipments are going to want their own cut for doing so, and you can be sure its going to be enough so that the ammunition on their own shelves is cheaper than what you can order after they add their markup for handling it. For those of us in rural areas, this is kind of a pain in the butt, too, because it can be virtually impossible to find certain types of ammunition locally, let alone at reasonable prices.

So, unless you want to extend background checks to all ammunition purchases, this really doesn't accomplish anything except to put the online retailers out of the ammunition business and to inconvenience...and sometimes greatly inconvenience...law-abiding gun owners.

edit on 4-6-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
43
<< 35  36  37    39  40 >>

log in

join