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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
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.
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?
Do you still not see where this is going? Your argument, while valid,
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.
Which is it? I
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?