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.

 

Hillary Clinton’s push on gun control marks a shift in presidential politics

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Sanders speaks with a forked tongue about guns.... or he is terribly misinformed.
He says that he stands with sportsmen and gun owners. But he says that he supports banning semiautomatic firearms. Plenty of states allow for hunting with those awful semi auto 30 round clip magazine ghost guns.

Whether stupid or lying.... not what I want in a President.


I would think that what he is saying is that he supports the right to own firearms that serve a normal function like hunting or sports shooting. However, some firearms are made with the purpose of war and killing people and don't serve any other function and those are what he wants to regulate. I'm not saying I agree with that or not but I imagine that's what he's trying to say.

You hunt with rifles and shotguns and stuff like that. You don't hunt with machine guns. Unless you're hunting humans.




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
You can murder American people on the streets, you can falsely imprison Americans, you make Americans suffer financially and make them live in poverty, you can allow criminals to control Americans streets..etc and they will not do anything.

But threaten to take someones guns....then watch them get riled up.

Kind of idiotic.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Neo......I'm in agreement with you; I am an active gun rights advocate and have and employ a CHL. But...my guess is that Hilary has to say these things to position herself to the left of center to counter Sanders. It probably doesn't mean she could or would attempt to do anything when elected, but....she's got to preach to the base and her base is all about disarming America, particularly the "Americans" her base hates with a passion.

Strange thing is, that Hilary doesn't understand that as she pivots, a statistically significant portion of Obama's base that she has to win over has moved against her on the gun issue. They have come to support gun rights. But she doesn't understand that and of course, the MSM refrains from reporting on that.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Daedal




I'm not advocating for a weapons ban, however, leaving loopholes such as this one open, in my opinion, may give the idea that responsible gun owners, as I would assume most are, don't care that someone can acquire a weapon who legally can't purchase one otherwise using this process. 


Then you support violating my rights to bear arms freely without having my privacy intact. If it was meant to be infringed they would have said so. It was not and never should have been legislated in anyway to inhibit the procurement of arms.


An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, at least that's what I've been told. The question is, is how can responsible gun owners help find a solution other than what some have proposed?

Instead of railing against anything to do with the right to bear arms, or advocates of gun prevention; formulate a proposal that protects responsible gun owners to counter them, find a solution, it can be done.

Nevertheless, most times often than not, whenever anyone mentions guns and prevention, people freak out. Then, as usual, the media comes in to portray them as gun loving nuts. In my opinion this issue is not going away, either help find a solution, or continue to let guns and gun owners get a bad reputation; emboldening those that would like to see no guns.

I've seen multiple threads here that link the affects of psychotropic drugs to almost everyone that commits mass murder; quick to reference big pharmaceutical and it's connections, but when asked how can we as individuals and gun owners help prevent this, the hardliners come out and rile people up. Quick to reference the connection, but offer no solution, per say.

If the notion is privacy or it invades my privacy, dude, there is no privacy anymore, that's a given, and in my opinion it's not getting any better or going to change.

As long as we continue to use they're tools; phones, computers, ect...privacy is gone. So why not help build and shape the system, and have a say in its growth or at least try too, after all; the tools that build it or invade privacy are used daily, most likely by everyone, myself included.

When we willingly and knowingly infringe our own privacy, knowing that, how do we move forward in this era and help protect our rights.









edit on 11-7-2015 by Daedal because: edit

edit on 11-7-2015 by Daedal because: edit



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: butcherguy
Sanders speaks with a forked tongue about guns.... or he is terribly misinformed.
He says that he stands with sportsmen and gun owners. But he says that he supports banning semiautomatic firearms. Plenty of states allow for hunting with those awful semi auto 30 round clip magazine ghost guns.

Whether stupid or lying.... not what I want in a President.


I would think that what he is saying is that he supports the right to own firearms that serve a normal function like hunting or sports shooting. However, some firearms are made with the purpose of war and killing people and don't serve any other function and those are what he wants to regulate. I'm not saying I agree with that or not but I imagine that's what he's trying to say.

You hunt with rifles and shotguns and stuff like that. You don't hunt with machine guns. Unless you're hunting humans.

You fit into the same category as Bernie.
Either you are misinformed, or playing stupid.
He wants to ban semiautomatic weapons... he said just that.
Semiautomatic weapons are LEGAL to hunt with and are USED in many states for hunting.... even the vaunted shotguns that you tout here, come in semiautomatic versions... for hunting.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedal



Nevertheless, most times often than not, whenever anyone mentions guns and prevention, people freak out. Then, as usual, the media comes in to portray them as gun loving nuts. In my opinion this issue is not going away, either help find a solution, or continue to let guns and gun owners get a bad reputation; emboldening those that would like to see no guns.


This is exactly right.

It makes it very difficult to intelligently discuss our 2nd amendment rights with people that do not exercise that right, or want tighter restrictions, when at the very start of the discussion we have people going to extremes.

How can we approach the issue and have a reasonable discussion with these people when right off the bat we call them a hag, a bitch and make irrational claims that they are trying to confiscate our firearms? That's absurd. They are not trying to do any such thing.

The gun-nuts give the rest of us pro-2nd amendment people as much of a headache as the anti-2nd crowd. They are just as much of a threat to our 2nd amendment right because they refuse to battle the issue with facts, respect and civility.

When we finally have an open and honest discussion with these people, it will be people such as myself that will approach the debate with civility and respect in order to take back our rights that have already been infringed upon. The gun nuts will be in the corner screaming "from my cold dead hands", shunned from the conversation because they have no desire to approach the issue intelligently.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The hag can talk all she wants, because to me she is "inconsequential", She is not going to win any elections.




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert





It makes it very difficult to intelligently discuss our 2nd amendment rights with people that do not exercise that right, or want tighter restrictions, when at the very start of the discussion we have people going to extremes.


There hasn't been an 'intelligent' discussion on gun rights in this country for over 80 years.

Tighter restrictions eh ?

Imagine a background check to get married.

Imagine a background check to vote.

Imagine a 'mandatory' waiting period.

The only reasonable discussion here is to return GUN RIGHTS to EXACTLY how the founders wanted it.

The right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE.

AFter the massive difficulties under the crown our ancestors had. After having to beg the French, and the Dutch for arms to fight their evolution.

The founders wrote the second. Then followed with with the rest of the bill of rights. Then came along the 14th amendment.

Better be a 'gun nut' than a government nut especially when that government has killed more people, and arms dictators to terrorists across the globe.

With a government like ours it is plain to see why the people should not have their RIGHT abridged.

But then again the act of going around shooting someone is ILLEGAL.

The 'anti gunners' would admit that if they wanted to have an 'honest' discussion.



edit on 11-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




I would think that what he is saying is that he supports the right to own firearms that serve a normal function like hunting or sports shooting.


Sanders is WRONG.

Our rights to to keep, and bear arms has NOTHING to do with hunting.




However, some firearms are made with the purpose of war and killing people and don't serve any other function and those are what he wants to regulate.


Anything can be used as a 'weapon of war'. Hell the first sniper rifles were hunting rifles.

Go back to the great war of 1 and 2 and the standard carry was bolt action. That hunters still use today.

That dog don't hunt.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Thanks Neo. You have provided a perfect example of what I was talking about. You are correct in some of the things you said, but approached it in a way that does not invite a discussion.

To simply say "shall not be infringed" will not work anymore.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Guess someone missed the specific quotations of the 14th amendment on the first page.

Yeah someone sure doesn't want to have an 'honest' dicsussion.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No, I read it and understand it. If our 2nd amendment right was so clearly defined, why must you refer to the 14th to defend it?

This is the problem. We need to more clearly define the 2nd amendment to ensure that it is, in fact, a right, and not an amendment that is up to interpretation.

It is that lack of clarity that allows the politicians the opportunity to make laws that further infringe on our rights.

The line of argument you are taking is a liability to our 2nd amendment rights because you are looking at the amendment and saying "shall not be infringed". It's not that simple.

What shall not be infringed? Our right to bear arms? Ok, what is an "arm"? At what point does a weapon become more than just an "arm"? Is "arm" defined in the constitution? It's not. So whom gets to define "arm"?

See where I'm going with this?

I believe you are correct in your premise, but we have to take it a bit further than "shall not be infringed" to protect our rights.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No the problem is that people just either can't, or just don't want to read the BILL of RIghts.

Why shouldn't the 14th amendment be referred ?

Just ignore it , and the rest of the bill of rights ?


'Honest' discussion eh.

What a joke.




The line of argument you are taking is a liability to our 2nd amendment rights because you are looking at the amendment and saying "shall not be infringed". It's not that simple.


Yeah it is THAT simple.

www.law.cornell.edu...



Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed


A well regulated militia, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms( Talking about two separate things there)

Both being necessary to the security of a FREE state.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That means without any limitation.

Follow that up with the 4th.



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 seize


Those restrictions, background checks is a 4th amendment violation.

The 5th,6th,7th all deal with people being taken to court, and crimes be proven.

Then there is that pesky little detail people can not be tried for the same crime twice.(except gun owners have been tried, tried, and tried for over 80 years and found guilty of crimes they never commit.

But who who cares.

Then there is the 9th, and 14th amendments.



Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Gun control DENIES, and DISPARAGES my rights.

Then here is the 14th AGAIN.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I know the US constitution is an inconvenience for those who want and 'honest' discussion.

Turns out the anti gunners really don't want to have an 'honest' discussion.

All that is clearly spelled out no interpretation about it.

edit on 11-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Where in the constitution does it define what an "arm" is? Since it's not defined, whom gets to define it?

Should we allow just anyone to have whatever weapon they want and it falls under the second amendment?

Since the spirit of the 2nd is to allow the people to protect themselves against the government and their armies, should regular citizens have access to anything and everything the military does?

If not, whom gets to decide where the line is drawn?

Do you still not see where this is going? Your argument, while valid, is way too simplistic.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

Where in the constitution does it define what an "arm" is? Since it's not defined, whom gets to define it?

Should we allow just anyone to have whatever weapon they want and it falls under the second amendment?

Since the spirit of the 2nd is to allow the people to protect themselves against the government and their armies, should regular citizens have access to anything and everything the military does?

If not, whom gets to decide where the line is drawn?

Do you still not see where this is going? Your argument, while valid, is way too simplistic.


Your right to bear arms extends to everything shy of planet detroying weapons because those can infring on everyones rights.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Should we allow just anyone to have whatever weapon they want and it falls under the second amendment?






Since the spirit of the 2nd is to allow the people to protect themselves against the government and their armies, should regular citizens have access to anything and everything the military does?


I see someone still doesn't want to have a 'honest' convo bringings red herrings like that.

That was the founders original intention.

To have a populace on an EQUAL footing with the state.




Do you still not see where this is going? Your argument, while valid,


Sure is unlike Clinton, and the anti gunners.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Where does it say that in the constitution?

If the spirit of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people the ability to defend itself against tyrannical government and it's military, wouldn't we have the right to possess anything the military has?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



I see someone still doesn't want to have a 'honest' convo bringings red herrings like that.

That was the founders original intention


Which is it? Is it a red herring or the original intention of the founders? You're not being very clear.



To have a populace on an EQUAL footing with the state.


We don't have that now, do we? Perhaps that's because the 2nd amendment is not specific and has allowed for our right to be further defined outside of the amendment itself.

I think we agree more than not, but I don't believe you are seeing the bigger picture here. You're taking offense where none needs to be taken. We ARE having an honest conversation, I just don't think you really know how to respond to my questions and comments.

You have yet to address the issues I brought-up.
edit on 11-7-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Which is it? I


Let me be 'perfectly clear'.

It does not make one damn bit of difference of what someone owns.

The action of murder is already illegal.

Rather sad some people here are trying to make a false equivolancy to support MORE asinine restrictions on something that was never meant to have them.

King George did the same thing to the colonials.

I don't see how anyone supports superfluous laws. That is already covered by the law, and doesn't matter what is used.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

Where does it say that in the constitution?

If the spirit of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people the ability to defend itself against tyrannical government and it's military, wouldn't we have the right to possess anything the military has?


Where does it say we CANT have any weapon we desire. The SPirit and the WORD are the same with the second.If this was a republican canidate you would say they are crazy.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join