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.

 

Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After the Holidays

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The Republicans lie about everything. The Democrats lie about almost everything.




posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: mamabeth

Apparently.

That is not only unreliable, it is non-standardised. The issue with having the parents do it, is that the parents may not know what they are talking about.


A lot of parents do know what they are talking about.I have grandchildren who know how to
shoot and properly take care of their firearms.Many of my family have been in the military.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth




Many of my family have been in the military.

Navy? Air Force?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Therein lays the issue. "A lot" is not "all."

I am not questioning your family's ability to educate your children in regards to firearms. I am questioning the next family. And after them, the new "next", and so on and so forth.
If even one family is not capable of doing so, it is insufficient.

I am quite certain that number is much higher than one family.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

My husband and dad were in the Air Force and an uncle,who served 4 tours of duty
in Vietnam.My first husband Army and a Vietnam vet.
My military -disabled son,Army.A couple of grandsons' who served in Iraq,Army.I don't
think anyone was in the Navy.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Phage

The Republicans lie about everything. The Democrats lie about almost everything.


Lets deny ignorance please. They both lie, but only when it make strategic sense. The one exception would be Hillary and Bill, sometimes it seems like they lie for the fun of it. "We were dodging sniper fire..", "I did not have sex with that woman"



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



The thing I've always found interesting about the argument that the second amendment's "militia" statement actually refers to every citizen is that it often tends to forget about the "well-regulated" part.


I absolutely agree. The Second Amendment is absolutely unique among all amendments, and indeed in the entire Constitution in that it includes the specific reasoning for including that clause. The Constitution is not a document known to be full of meaningless word salad. The "well regulated militia" is there for a reason, and that reason is to explain the purpose of the 'right' and by implication place limits on that right.

I want to focus on the "well regulated militia" bit, and expand on this a little more.

As we know, the Second Amendment reads:

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.


Now what, do you suppose, did the authors of the Second Amendment mean by "well-regulated militia"?

Where might we look for guidance on that? Is there any other reference to "militia" and "regulation" that might give a clue? Does the Constitution say anything else about a "militia" and "regulations"?

Well what about this, from Article I Section 8:


The Congress shall have power...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


WOW

Right there in the Constitution it specifically says that the militia is organized, armed, and disciplined by Congress; and that it is staffed and trained by the States to the standard prescribed by Congress.

That sounds like the Constitution has explicitly defined EXACTLY what a "well-regulated militia" is in the minds of the Authors of the Constitution.

In what way can the argument be put that the Second Amendment applies to the arming of the masses of untrained, unorganized, and undisciplined Lone Ranger wanna-bees?

The reality is exactly this: unless you are actually part of a militia as defined by the Constitution the Second Amendment DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU and the permission for you to bear arms under any circumstance is a POLITICALLY GRANTED PRIVILEGE, not a Constitutional Right. Period.

Don't misunderstand me: I have no problem with it being a politically granted privilege - there are plenty of reasons for non-militia folk to bear arms - but I have a lot of problems with pretending that it is a Constitutional right with no scope for the political process to manage the privilege.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo

And it is those military personnel that break ranks who would win any potential civil-war type scenario.

Relatively untrained civilians would be minor support at best, cannon fodder as a middle ground, active hindrances at worst.


I think you are mistaken about the population in America. There are more former military members than active. Think about that for a moment.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth
I know that Army receives comprehensive firearms training. Was not aware that Air Force does.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Lets pretend that SCOTUS doesn't agree that the 2nd amendment gives the common person the right to bear arms. You need to read it again and think about the commas and why they are there, I mean its not word and punctuation salad.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo



Lets pretend that SCOTUS doesn't agree that the 2nd amendment gives the common person the right to bear arms.

Why? They do seem to agree, since they have invalided laws which unreasonably infringe upon that right.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

How many former military members are there in comparison to ordinary civilians?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo

How many former military members are there in comparison to ordinary civilians?


1.4 million serving, 22 million veterans.

Source



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo



Lets pretend that SCOTUS doesn't agree that the 2nd amendment gives the common person the right to bear arms.

Why? They do seem to agree, since they have invalided laws which unreasonably infringe upon that right.


I was trying to reason with rnaa without completely destroying his or her post. I could have simply said your post is garbage because SCOTUS said F YOU!



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

So, about 7% of the US population are former military. I would expect many of them to be quite elderly, or debilitatingly injured.

Regardless, even if they are former military and able-bodied, they will not have access to the hardware. As I have repeatedly said, any civil war fought will, for the vast majority, be won for the people by defecting personnel who were in active service at the time.

Technology will eventually reach a point where firearms become almost totally useless in the event of an oppressive government regime coming into fruition.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Okay, this one... from the OP:



4. New Federal regulations which will permit, without a warrant, any civil authority to enter a home of a registered gun owner to check for gun safety when it comes to the “proper” storage of guns. Said gun can be confiscated and the owner will be subject to arrest and fines if a gun does not meet governmental storage regulations. The new regulations will be devised to prevent one from using the gun in a moment’s notice.


Okay, barging into someone's home without a warrant isn't cool...but just imagine...

"Dude, I got cited for improperly storing my guns. I mean, they weren't laying all over the floor -- I had them strewn around on my coffee table. I've told my toddler that they're not toys a few times, it's HIS fault if he kills himself. I mean, personal responsibility man, even a 5 year old needs to understand that! I don't get it...so a few shotgun shells were rolling around on the floor too-- big deal!"

There are some really stupid and irresponsible people who should never be allowed to own firearms, but there isn't any sensible way to prevent those people from getting them.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo

So, about 7% of the US population are former military. I would expect many of them to be quite elderly, or debilitatingly injured.

Regardless, even if they are former military and able-bodied, they will not have access to the hardware. As I have repeatedly said, any civil war fought will, for the vast majority, be won for the people by defecting personnel who were in active service at the time.

Technology will eventually reach a point where firearms become almost totally useless in the event of an oppressive government regime coming into fruition.



It pretty much is. I can't buy hellfire missile systems and predator drones...but our government has them, and would use them to put down any insurrection of people armed with AR-15's and shotguns.

The government has biological and technological weapons (not to mention media control and propaganda) to keep the people in their place.

This idea about owning guns to somehow protect you from the big bad government is a stupid prepubescent fantasy. Real life isn't like the movie "Red Dawn". The government can and will crush you with thermal imagery from space if they have to. It's a joke it took 10+ years to find Osama. We can see the type of screw from a moving 747 from orbit...



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo

So, about 7% of the US population are former military. I would expect many of them to be quite elderly, or debilitatingly injured.

Regardless, even if they are former military and able-bodied, they will not have access to the hardware. As I have repeatedly said, any civil war fought will, for the vast majority, be won for the people by defecting personnel who were in active service at the time.

Technology will eventually reach a point where firearms become almost totally useless in the event of an oppressive government regime coming into fruition.



The best tool is a rifle. Using that tool, you can obtain other tools for bigger jobs. Regarding technology and government oppression, I agree. Obama pushed for funding into mapping the human brain, which is a double edged sword. You can use the tech to cure the sick or control dissent. The best form of oppression is to have people willingly line up.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




Real life isn't like the movie "Red Dawn".

But that was just Soviets. They're easy. So that was real.


edit on 12/27/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Hmm, almost, but not quite, I think. Theoretically a group of people with small arms could gain access to the operating systems for those high-tech weapons (even if I think that practically speaking it would be basically impossible.)

Does the government have those insane auto-targeting turrets like the ones at the Korean border set up around their military compounds yet? Once those are there, the chance of a civilian-based insurrection in case of a totalitarian military government being successful is zero. Not that it's much higher, at the moment.

@BIGPoJo

How?
Robbing military convoys? Not going to happen. Rifle, does not, in fact, beat tank.

I truly think that one of the greatest dangers our species faces is our technological advancement massively outstripping our moral one. I adore science, but I almost want to stop supporting it when it comes to that kind of stuff. Any massive breakthroughs (immortality, telekinesis, Star-Trek style fabrication devices, so on and so forth) WILL go to the almost exclusive benefit of the 1%, or even just the 0.1%.
I'm scared about what will happen if we discover something like effective mind control as humanity currently stands.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join