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.

 

No Scalia no 2nd

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: shooterbrody

There is an extreme dislike of the 2nd Amendment by elements on the progressive left. They abhor freedoms and personal responsibilities and feel that government is the solution to everything.

Call them closet socialists, communists, but they are the enemy of freedom.



What amazing insight... Yeah me and my lefty friends are always talking about how much we absolutely hate freedoms and can't stand personal responsibility. Those two things are the absolute worst!!!

And government IS the solution to all our probs! I mean look at Homeland Security and TSA and if we can just get government to ban abortions and keep the gays out of marriage. Now if we could just use the government to ban all Muslims... Man wouldn't that be great. Great Big Empire Level Small Government
edit on 22-4-2016 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I wonder what right they will want to limit next?
Illegal searches?
Speech?
Voting?

Just a little nip here and a cut there. Soon you will not recognize whatever it was you started with.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I wonder what right they will want to limit next?
Illegal searches?
Speech?
Voting?

Just a little nip here and a cut there. Soon you will not recognize whatever it was you started with.


Voting is pretty well taken care of.

Illegal Searches... Well as long as we're scared of terrorists and have nothing to hide, no reason to be concerned about that.

Speech-- gotta keep that in tact for those gun background checks to see who should be denied a gun based on radical anti-establishment views

Welcome to the New American Century
edit on 22-4-2016 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
There are people that apparently don't see gun ownership as a right. It is mainly partisan because a predominant majority of leftists agree that gun ownership should be a privilege granted by the government.

If speech were as regulated the same as they want gun regulation, then it'd be more apparent that there are those that desire to live in an authoritarian state.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

In this social and political climate, I do not see much coming of this. Though of course anything is possible. Firearms today are more of a must have item than probably ever before in recent times. Either way, if you have not boughten firearms and ammo yet, you probably should. I know this sounds a bit hypocritical to what I just said in my first line, but I do see prices probably going up and maybe another round of ammo shortages.


iTruthSeeker
edit on 22-4-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


Serving alcohol to a drunk that is involved in a crime is and should be a crime.

However, this is talking about being able to sue Jack Daniels because a bar served you too much and then you got a DUI.

Not only have we eliminated personal responsibility (don't drink and drive), we have added a crime to the books (serving alcohol to a drunk) and made it a liability to produce a product (Jack Daniels).

The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not give an advantage to firearms manufacturers that is not enjoyed by every other manufacturer in the world. Beat someone to death with a hammer and see if the victims family can sue Craftsman for making a hammer, run them over with a car and see if they can sue Ford.

This is just another lie from the left like the "gun show loophole" that they can never seem to show happening on camera.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




When sellers and manufacturers fail to keep their product out of the hands of crazy then they need to be held responsible too.


Exactly how can gun makers do that? How can Apple keep their IPhones out of the hands of terrorists? How about Ford gets sued every time one of their vehicles is involved in a crime? Or does this apply only to guns and this going to be one of those "But, But, that's different!!" arguments.
Gun makers have no way to control who buys their guns. It's just anti gunners whining and expecting the impossible.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Yo, thanks!



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This is ridiculous. Nobody wants to ban guns because they hate freedom, that's just asinine. They want guns banned because they have an extreme dislike watching children get gunned down in school shootings day after day.

On one extreme end of the spectrum you could argue the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms (even a home made nuclear bomb lets say), which gives 1 person the ability to kill hundreds of thousands with the push of a button. If nuclear home-made bombs are against the 2nd, then where does the distinction lie? Is your freedom worth the death of children, and if so, how many children can die so that you can have guns?


Our freedom to own guns shall not be infringed. Even if we all die it will not be infringed. Even if a million children die i t wont be infringed. Now a ATOM BOMB is not a weapon that can be fired from a gun. it has to be ale to be held by a person and it cannot infringe on anyone elses rights. Thats the line. it cannot infringe on anothers rights.

Shooting in self defense is a right and only one of the few exceptions where its ok to infringe on the attackers rights by defending your right to live.

BTW your argument is a typical one and usually no ttaken seriously because 99.99 percent of us coudnt make one let alone buy one. The second caters to the MAJORITY or weapons owners.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not give an advantage to firearms manufacturers that is not enjoyed by every other manufacturer in the world. Beat someone to death with a hammer and see if the victims family can sue Craftsman for making a hammer, run them over with a car and see if they can sue Ford.

This is just another lie from the left like the "gun show loophole" that they can never seem to show happening on camera.


You're right on both counts. The far-left is currently directing fire at the PLCAA because they have realized that its their only viable route to anything resembling a ban. If they can defeat the PLCAA, they can then force the firearms manufacturers to defend an endless stream of frivolous lawsuits, eventually driving it into bankruptcy and destroying the industry.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Hey I don't know. I also don't know what to do about Isis, racial inequality, or acid rain.
I'm not running.
Maybe it has something to do with the average Joe needing assault rifles or automatic weapons.
I don't know guns. I've never held one.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


Part of me hopes they do get the law overturned.


The next day I'd have my cousin hit my Jeep while driving his Ford, all in a McDonald's parking lot. Instant Billionaire.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

of the quotes you posted, it seems like chelsea simply pointed out that the supreme court was inconsistent in its rulings

can you post the part where she says the left is going to use the court to enact gun control ? I prefer to deal in direct quotes

for the record I am independent and fully support sensible gun ownership (trigger locks & gunsafes)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: yuppa


Part of me hopes they do get the law overturned.


The next day I'd have my cousin hit my Jeep while driving his Ford, all in a McDonald's parking lot. Instant Billionaire.



Think you meant to respond to Vor. And Sure hold someone responsible for something YOU Do is really smart. If they do this then it will Kill manufacturing jobs to nothing. You talk about a economic collapse THAT would cause one.

MAnufacturers who make a product that works as advertised and has no intentional errors or malfuntions should not be held liable because some jack off mis used their product. It totally absolves the individual of responsibility and thats just not right.




top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join