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.

 

CNN to host Obama town hall on guns in America

page: 17
25
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Ssssppptt.....I manufacture firearms. I also work with some of the leading 2nd Rights groups and Lawyer based out of Tucson.
Infringement is infringement.

Oh, Universal Background checks would bring a lot of business to normal FFLs, as they would process the transfers. It's still infringement.




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

By the standards of "infringement", we should all be allowed to own anti-aircraft batteries, land mines, RPGs, chemical weapons and nukes.




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

And here we go. The last ignorant stand of those that have nothing else to back their BS with.


Nukes are not arms. Chemical weapons are not arms.

Do you even know what the intent was/is behind the 2nd?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Yeah, self defense is the primary function of the 2nd. It also is to protect yourself against your own tyrannical government, and also to act as a secondary force to repel invading foreign armies.

I don't see how you can protect yourself from a government that has hellfire missiles, nukes, chemical weapons, energy weapons, rail guns ect unless you, the citizen, are also allowed to have these things.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well, there ya go. You just answered your own question.
And no, self defense is/was not the primary function of the 2nd.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Here's 9 things about the 2nd. It seems pretty pro-gun to me, so I don't think it's liberally biased:




4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment

We often hear politicians talk about their strong commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting. Although hunting is a legitimate purpose for firearms, it isn't the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves ... the 'right of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury' (p.21). They conclude "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right" (p.56).

Source

That site does a good job explaining "in common use at the time" to define "arms"...but it doesn't go quite far enough. If we are supposed to be able to protect ourselves from the government, the government should't be allowed to own weapons we can't own ourselves.

Red Dawn is just a movie. No one is going full Rambo in the Colorado Rockies against the "the man" and winning. They'll lock onto your thermal signature or something and zap you from 100 miles away with over-the-horizon cruise missiles. Or if you're dumb enough to keep a cell phone on you, they'll just paint your SIM card inside your phone and use that. A bolt action rifle, handgun or AR-15 isn't going to stop a Bradley or be able to shoot down an F-35 that's lazing targets.

I think this country's biggest problem is no one can agree on WHAT the 2nd really means. Everyone has a radically different interpretation, and the damned thing is vague enough to be taken in wild directions based on revisionist histories surrounding the founding fathers.
edit on 8-1-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

And........the US is not supposed to have a standing Army.

It was put in place to counter a tyrannical Govt.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom


I think this country's biggest problem is no one can agree on WHAT the 2nd really means. Everyone has a radically different interpretation, and the damned thing is vague enough to be taken in wild directions based on revisionist histories surrounding the founding fathers.


It is only convoluted by those that by those that don't like it.

"Shall not be infringed" is about a simple and plain as it gets.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

If you don't mind me adding to your point...the one thing we know for a fact is that the Bill of Rights, in its entirety, was not intended to levy restrictions upon the people, but rather, the federal government. Given that, even if a person argues that there's ambiguity in the wording of 2A (or any of those ten amendments), it seems to me that the most sensible interpretation should default to the one that is the broadest and most inclusive with regards to conferring and protecting the rights of the people, whether they be the common rights of the militia or those of the individual citizen.




top topics



 
25
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join