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.
He is gone from Congress, giving him space to reflect on his namesake amendment that, to this day, continues to define the rigid politics of gun policy. When he helped pass a restriction of federal funding for gun violence research in 1996, the goal wasn't to be so suffocating, he insisted. But the measure was just that, dampening federal research for years and discouraging researchers from entering the field.
Now, as mass shootings pile up, including last week's killing of nine at a community college in Oregon, Dickey admitted to carrying a sense of responsibility for progress not made.
"I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time," Dickey, an Arkansas Republican, told the Huffington Post in an interview. "I have regrets."
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Nothing should be regulated in the land of the free. If you break the law, which means hurting other people, then you should be punished. Restitution is preferable to prison.
"Regulated" in the Constitution meant-- having the discipline and equipment so as to be a regular unit in the Continental Army. Regulated meant ready to fight in the big army.
Many things need to be regulated in any society and "hurting people" is only one form of lawbreaking.
You don't think that lead exposure needs to be regulated? How about pesticides like DDT? How about the disposal of radioactive waste, should that be regulated?
Polluting or harming the environment is a form of law breaking as well as many other things.
If you hurt no one, you are not breaking the law.
If you hurt someone, then you owe restitution.
Does harming future generations count for anything? You know, those people we call our children and grandchildren, do they count?
DDT almost eradicated malaria in the tropics. The folks that live there should decide whether DDT is illegal or not.
Harm deserves restitution, like I already wrote.
Prevention is addiction to totalitarianism.
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Nothing should be regulated in the land of the free. If you break the law, which means hurting other people, then you should be punished. Restitution is preferable to prison.
"Regulated" in the Constitution meant-- having the discipline and equipment so as to be a regular unit in the Continental Army. Regulated meant ready to fight in the big army.
Many things need to be regulated in any society and "hurting people" is only one form of lawbreaking.
You don't think that lead exposure needs to be regulated? How about pesticides like DDT? How about the disposal of radioactive waste, should that be regulated?
Polluting or harming the environment is a form of law breaking as well as many other things.
If you hurt no one, you are not breaking the law.
If you hurt someone, then you owe restitution.
Does harming future generations count for anything? You know, those people we call our children and grandchildren, do they count?
DDT almost eradicated malaria in the tropics. The folks that live there should decide whether DDT is illegal or not.
Harm deserves restitution, like I already wrote.
Prevention is addiction to totalitarianism.
DDT is also proven to cause a whole host of long term side effects in both humans and wildlife. On top of that, those responsible for environmental pollution are usually long gone or file for bankruptcy protection by the time the damage is realized and many of those affected don't realize the cause, or they're already dead.
Remember Love Canal? That's what lack of regulations get us.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
Now they seek to make hunting and fishing a right guaranteed by the constitution.
Seems like a good idea unless you are a thinker.
originally posted by: Phoenix
First off - if a discussion is to be done on 2A then the OP should use original text instead of example that has extra commas added that are not in official preserved Constitution.
The original reads,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to preserve the security of a free state,
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The continued addition of those extra commas is a sore spot for me as it subtly changes meaning and adds room for useless argument on meaning.
Regarding commas found in the eight different versions of the Second Amendment returned as ratified from various state legislatures, there was at least one of each with zero, one, two, and three commas. [Source within Source]
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Flatfish
Most shops can tell by the way you actually HANDLE the gun.
If you walk into some shops I know and hold a pistol sideways you're not buying a damn thing.
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: amicktd
In my opinion it still holds merit. Any country with half a brain knows the dangers of trying to invade America. Nobody wants to invade a country where the military is armed to the teeth as well as its population.
I don't think anyone, (foreign or American) really believes that it's even possible to "disarm" the American populace. Except of course, those who propagate fear and paranoia for a living.
Most of what I'm hearing, are calls for the implementation of reasonable regulations that have been proven to have a positive affect wherever the have been instituted.
I personally wouldn't go with the comma argument. More relevance and intent can be probably be derived elsewhere.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ~Lucidity
I personally wouldn't go with the comma argument. More relevance and intent can be probably be derived elsewhere.
So basically ignore punctuation.
www.businessinsider.com...
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Nothing should be regulated in the land of the free. If you break the law, which means hurting other people, then you should be punished. Restitution is preferable to prison.
"Regulated" in the Constitution meant-- having the discipline and equipment so as to be a regular unit in the Continental Army. Regulated meant ready to fight in the big army.
Many things need to be regulated in any society and "hurting people" is only one form of lawbreaking.
You don't think that lead exposure needs to be regulated? How about pesticides like DDT? How about the disposal of radioactive waste, should that be regulated?
Polluting or harming the environment is a form of law breaking as well as many other things.
If you hurt no one, you are not breaking the law.
If you hurt someone, then you owe restitution.
Does harming future generations count for anything? You know, those people we call our children and grandchildren, do they count?
DDT almost eradicated malaria in the tropics. The folks that live there should decide whether DDT is illegal or not.
Harm deserves restitution, like I already wrote.
Prevention is addiction to totalitarianism.
DDT is also proven to cause a whole host of long term side effects in both humans and wildlife. On top of that, those responsible for environmental pollution are usually long gone or file for bankruptcy protection by the time the damage is realized and many of those affected don't realize the cause, or they're already dead.
Remember Love Canal? That's what lack of regulations get us.
Side effects as bad as malaria?
The folks suffering the malaria should have decided the fate of their own area.
Publicity prevents another love canal.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Thomas Jefferson.