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: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



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.


I support much fewer restrictions. The difference is that I know we cannot roll-back restrictions until our 2nd amendment right is more clearly defined. That lack of clarity is what has allowed politicians and bureaucrats the ability to further define our right.

Again, you show how not to approach the issue. Making assumptions and generalizations is not the intelligent way to approach this issue. You assume I want more restriction, but I do not. I only want to find a way to solidify our rights so that it is not/will not be infringed upon.



That is already covered by the law, and doesn't matter what is used.


You're right. It's covered outside of the second amendment in laws made by politicians and bureaucrats.




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

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.


Correct. It doesn't say what is or is not acceptable. That lack of clarity has allowed others to decide what is acceptable. Sure do wish the founders could have had a crystal ball to see in to the future and witness the state of technology and weaponry to lay out the specifics of the 2nd amendment.

Or perhaps I wish they would have included a process in which to amend the constitution that gives us the ability to clearly define our rights as times change, and to allow us the tools needed to fight against those that would want to create laws infringing on our rights.

Oh, wait.....they did. Sweet!



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
People are bickering over the wrong issue.

Whether you like her or not, Hillary is not a stupid woman. She is well aware that the problem is not the guns themselves. She is aware that mental health, pharmaceuticals, illegal drugs and cultural problems/gangs are the main causes of the violence that goes on.

She. Doesn't. Care. Nor does she care about your rights until she can use them for political leverage.

The agenda is gun control. Period.

The issue to be discussed is why are they so afraid of guns? Could it be that they are afraid that they might be turned against them if they proceed with their dismantling of the US?

When you actually look at statistics we don't have a gun problem.

When the media consistently sensationalizes and drums things into peoples heads daily, they get the impression that the US is a shoot em up free for all. This is not true. There are a few places (very few) that this is true to a point, but that violence is a result of failed policy, not guns.

Remove Detroit, Chicago, LA, and New Orleans from the stats (maybe one or two others) and see where the US stands. The problems in these cities are illegal drugs and gangs. Not guns.

They won't discuss these issues because then we must ask why they exist. If we examine why they exist we will find it's result of their own bad policies. Bad laws, bad execution of the laws, bad politics..... in other words their own fault.

The average person calling for more gun control is mostly unaware of the true problems because they simply parrot what they've been told without doing any research or simply asking simple questions. The politicians are just following the agenda given to them. Hillary is no different.

There is no question on the 2nd or it's meaning. It's intentions are clear. The words of the people who wrote it are clear. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant or being intentionally dishonest. Words can be twisted to try to force a meaning that doesn't exist, kind of like Clintons what the meaning of "is" is. It doesn't make their convoluted ramblings true.

What should be being discussed is why does it seem everything being done "for our own good" is anything but.


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



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Primordial



There is no question on the 2nd or it's meaning. It's intentions are clear. The words of the people who wrote it are clear. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant or being intentionally dishonest.


That is not true. Does the 2nd define "arms"? Does it say that everyone can bear arms, except felons? Does it say fully-auto firearms require a specific licence?

No, it does not. Then why have laws been passed above and beyond the 2nd to make exceptions to our right?

That's because the 2nd amendment is not clear. It's that lack of clarity that has given politicians the fuel needed to further define our right outside of the constitution.
edit on 11-7-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Primordial



There is no question on the 2nd or it's meaning. It's intentions are clear. The words of the people who wrote it are clear. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant or being intentionally dishonest.


That is not true. Does the 2nd define "arms"? Does it say that everyone can bear arms, except felons? Does it say fully-auto firearms require a specific licence?

No, it does not. Then why have laws been passed above and beyond the 2nd to make exceptions to our right?

That's because the 2nd amendment is not clear. It's that lack of clarity that has given politicians the fuel needed to further define our right outside of the constitution.


No, it's clear. They founders did not differentiate between a musket or a cannon or a warship. They did not write "the right of the militia". The REASON for the 2nd was to be able to defend against a tyrannical government. This is not for debate. The only way to be able to do that is to be on equal footing.

Today's laws cause the violence you see. If we were able to defend ourselves without fear of imprisonment, the felons would be quickly weeded out. In fact, those bent on causing harm to innocent people would have to think long and hard about carrying out those plans if their own life hung in the balance.

We should not need a license to exercise a right. The fact that we let it happen doesn't negate that fact. There are states that require NO license to own or carry. Why are these states not littered with the dead bodies of all the shooting victims? Why is it that the most restricted areas generally have the highest rate of gun problems? Maybe it's because the average innocent person is unable to defend themselves without jail time.

Fully auto .... so what? They're legal so long as you pay the tax. People have them. Thousands. Where are all the wild machine gun wielding maniacs? So are grenade launchers. So are tanks and APC's. So what. Seems the only ones running around with full auto are criminals who ignore the law anyway, who would quickly be taken care of if the average Joe was allowed to defend his home and neighborhood. Would the average gang banger continue his life of crime if every neighbor was allowed to defend themselves?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Primordial



The REASON for the 2nd was to be able to defend against a tyrannical government. This is not for debate. The only way to be able to do that is to be on equal footing.


I agree. That is not what's being debated.

I couldn't help but notice how the rest of your post in contradictory. First you say this:



We should not need a license to exercise a right.


Then you say this:



Fully auto .... so what? They're legal so long as you pay the tax.


You do not need to pay a "tax" to have a fully-auto firearm. You have to have a specific FFL licence. But what is the difference between a tax or a licence? Both concede your right to the state to own that particular firearm.

Are you ok with a tax, but not a license?

Regardless, my point is that since the 2nd is vague and not clearly defined, the restrictions we have today have been placed to further define it outside of the constitution. We need to stop that by amending the constitution and abolishing all other laws, including state laws, that place restrictions on our 2nd amendment right.

Let me ask you a question. Would you agree with the statement "we do not need more gun laws, we need to enforce existing laws"?


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

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



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Primordial

Very well said, my friend,

in America land of political rats gun, abortion and religion has always been a free ticket for political bickering specially during election years.

The political rats do not have anything plan on how to fix it because is nothing to fix, but they sure can make a none consequential argument for years or even decades for those that will listen.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Primordial

Most of us who have them usually AIM instead of pray and spray so full auto is kind of worthless considering the pricses anyway.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I'm not saying I agree with licensing or a tax, I'm merely stating that's just how it is at present. I'm not contradicting myself, the law contradicts the constitution.

Some people who are anti-2nd amendment use the BS argument of "well do you think we should be able to own machine guns, grenades, tanks, etc........". I merely spoke of it to show that we can in fact own all those things legally, yet I haven't heard of too many 7-11 getting robbed with grenade launchers.




Let me ask you a question. Would you agree with the statement "we do not need more gun laws, we need to enforce existing laws"?


I would absolutely agree with that. I would also add that we need to reevaluate many of the existing laws. I live in NYC. One of, if not the most, restrictive areas in the country as far as gun laws go. The criminals freely run around with guns and kill each other regularly so the restrictions do nothing to stop them. However, if I go through all the effort of getting a permit here ...

(which costs about $500 bucks just to apply, fingerprinted, background checks, show reason, three references, an interview with NYPD, 6 months to a year wait, and could still be denied for no reason ... money non-refundable of course .... and that's just a premise permit. NYC does not issue carry permits unless you are a security guard or rich and connected)

...and I defend myself with a gun I have a very good chance of going to jail. If will almost certainly get sued and have my life ruined because I simply defended myself. Do you think that's right?

p.s Having to pay for that specific FFL license is a tax. What else would you call it?

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

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



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Primordial



I would absolutely agree with that.


As I expected. I figured you would respond that way and I do not want someone that agrees with that to represent me in the debate.

Saying "we don't need more laws, we need to enforce existing laws" is just like saying "it's ok that you have already infringed on my rights, but please don't infringe on them any more".

We need to put our foot down and demand that our second amendment rights be clearly defined or we stand to have our rights to be further defined by the politicians.



I merely spoke of it to show that we can in fact own all those things legally, yet I haven't heard of too many 7-11 getting robbed with grenade launchers.


Yes you can, if you have permission from the government. Not much of a 2nd amendment right if you have to ask for permission, huh?

Do you see my point yet? Many in the pro-2nd debate hate that I speak about refining the 2nd amendment but can't see past their noses to realize that if we don't our right will continue to be infringed upon.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Primordial



I would absolutely agree with that.


As I expected. I figured you would respond that way and I do not want someone that agrees with that to represent me in the debate.

Saying "we don't need more laws, we need to enforce existing laws" is just like saying "it's ok that you have already infringed on my rights, but please don't infringe on them any more".

We need to put our foot down and demand that our second amendment rights be clearly defined or we stand to have our rights to be further defined by the politicians.



I merely spoke of it to show that we can in fact own all those things legally, yet I haven't heard of too many 7-11 getting robbed with grenade launchers.


Yes you can, if you have permission from the government. Not much of a 2nd amendment right if you have to ask for permission, huh?

Do you see my point yet? Many in the pro-2nd debate hate that I speak about refining the 2nd amendment but can't see past their noses to realize that if we don't our right will continue to be infringed upon.


You neglected to quote the next sentence.



I would also add that we need to reevaluate many of the existing laws.


We seem to be arguing but really agree with each other.

If it were up to me there would be no licensing. The only thing I can sort of agree with is background checks. I've had it done .... took about 2 minutes and I was out the door. What we need to focus on is what would get you disqualified. It seems they are trying to get everything classified as a mental issue so this is where my doubts on background checks come in. if they label every little thing as an illness it's a back door to deny you.

I still hold that the 2nd is only vague to those who want to restrict it



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I think this about sums up Hillary's presidential campaign and how shes being recieved




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Defining the second IS a restriction is what were trying to tell you. Its vague on purpose so it cant be regulated.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Primordial

Well, I guess we will have to agree on what we can and politely disagree where needed.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

Defining the second IS a restriction is what were trying to tell you. Its vague on purpose so it cant be regulated.


That didn't work out so well did it? Seems like it's been regulated anyway and it appears those regulations stand-up in court because the 2nd didn't specify.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

Defining the second IS a restriction is what were trying to tell you. Its vague on purpose so it cant be regulated.


That didn't work out so well did it? Seems like it's been regulated anyway and it appears those regulations stand-up in court because the 2nd didn't specify.


If the supreme court was not a kangaroo court and actually followed the constitution you would nto have a leg to stand on. It is only regulated due to the sheeple doing what their shepards say to do. legally they are in the wrong. Maybe th e UN needs to put santions on the US until it actually follows its own laws?

Governments should fear their people,not th eother way around.
Take my Blue tagline as to my thoughts on th e matter of goverment over reach.
edit on 15000000pppm by yuppa because: V's wisdom added



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

Defining the second IS a restriction is what were trying to tell you. Its vague on purpose so it cant be regulated.


That didn't work out so well did it? Seems like it's been regulated anyway and it appears those regulations stand-up in court because the 2nd didn't specify.


If the supreme court was not a kangaroo court and actually followed the constitution you would nto have a leg to stand on. It is only regulated due to the sheeple doing what their shepards say to do. legally they are in the wrong. Maybe th e UN needs to put santions on the US until it actually follows its own laws?


That's what happens when our rights are left to interpretation and are not clearly defined. That's been my argument this entire time.

Either we lay it out once and for all, or we continue to have a 2nd amendment privilege at the mercy of courts and politicians.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
You fit into the same category as Bernie.


I'll take that as a compliment.


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.


Maybe it is legal to hunt with semiauto weapons but that isn't really the point now is it. What do you need to hunt with a semiauto assault weapon??? Hunting with a modern day gun is already a massive advantage for the hunter as is. Making the claim that assault weapons are needed for hunting is silly. Man has been hunting since before guns were even around and doing just fine and that was when there was truly some big game left.

All Sanders is saying is that there needs to be some give and take and some reasonable effort from everyone to come to a solution.




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

Defining the second IS a restriction is what were trying to tell you. Its vague on purpose so it cant be regulated.


That didn't work out so well did it? Seems like it's been regulated anyway and it appears those regulations stand-up in court because the 2nd didn't specify.


If the supreme court was not a kangaroo court and actually followed the constitution you would nto have a leg to stand on. It is only regulated due to the sheeple doing what their shepards say to do. legally they are in the wrong. Maybe th e UN needs to put santions on the US until it actually follows its own laws?


That's what happens when our rights are left to interpretation and are not clearly defined. That's been my argument this entire time.

Either we lay it out once and for all, or we continue to have a 2nd amendment privilege at the mercy of courts and politicians.



This is a circle jerk huh? The second is clearly defined as arms,a arm is a weapon. A weapon is a instrument made to destroy,harm,hunt,protect with. You want them to specify a weapon type correct? So single action hand loaded pistols for regular americans right? Teh danger of specifics is they will tell you what type you can have then out gun you with something better. High prices already regulate high tech weapons and there is no need for regulation of them.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Again, it's only vague to those who want to restrict and twist words. It is not vague or ambiguous.

If you define "arms" to mean something specific, all other options will quickly become forbidden. If the framers had said "the right to keep and bear muskets and cannons", because it's what they had and they couldn't envision a 6000 round per minute Vulcan then the anti-2nd crowd would insist that all we could own was muskets and cannons.

Likewise, if the handheld 5000 fps railgun gets invented but you defined the 2nd to be specific .... well you are out of luck. You boxed yourself in.

The is no definition that is future proof without just specifying "all weapons in common use, whether in the past or future, for military or sporting use, of any material, powered by any source, ..... etc." ....... or you could just say arms.

I get what introvert is saying but no matter how you try to define it someone will try to "interpret" what you "really meant".

The first step is to try to educate people and undo all the brainwashing that's been done. People in the past weren't so afraid of guns because everybody either had them or was around them. There was marksmanship taught in school for christs sake.

Until peoples attitudes change there will be a constant assault on the 2nd because they can get away with it.
edit on 11-7-2015 by Primordial because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join