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.

 

The Reality of Gun Control

page: 7
44
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

No, it doesn't matter, they gave the means to address those things. Do you think that you WOULDN'T be able to pass an amendment to the 2nd amendment restricting public access to nuclear arms? Biological or Chemical arms? I simply ask that the govt solely act within the framework of the authority that is granted to them by the people, and denying people access to arms without a consitutional amendment is a violation of the constitution.

Jaden

p.s. the reason they DON'T pass an amendment stating such is that it would be an acknowledgement that restricting access to arms is unconstitutional, you know that there is a reason that you can legally own fully automatic firearms right? You have to pay a $200 tax stamp, when the passed the firearms act requiring a tax stamp on class III firearms, they KNEW they weren't legally allowed to restrict the public's access to firearms. That's why they didn't ban them outright, it would've never held.

So they did what they always do, they passed restrictions incrementally that they thought they could get away with.

They let the assault weapons ban expire because it was coming up for SCOTUS review and they didn't want it to be because there was a great likelihood that it wouldn't hold up and they didn't want that precedent set.


edit on 24-6-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Indigo5

No, it doesn't matter, they gave the means to address those things. Do you think that you WOULDN'T be able to pass an amendment to the 2nd amendment restricting public access to nuclear arms? Biological or Chemical arms? I simply ask that the govt solely act within the framework of the authority that is granted to them by the people, and denying people access to arms without a consitutional amendment is a violation of the constitution.


Don't be silly...No, we do not have to pass an amendment specifying that "arms" in the 2nd amendment is not to include nuclear weapons.

Nor do we have to pass an amendment around free speech to include the internet and exclude child pornography.

The founders created the constitution to be living for the ages...and where there is debate...The courts decide..
Article 3 section 2
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States "


edit on 24-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Indigo5

They let the assault weapons ban expire because it was coming up for SCOTUS review and they didn't want it to be because there was a great likelihood that it wouldn't hold up and they didn't want that precedent set.



This is factually false..

The Assault Weapons ban expired as per it's sunset provision. It was not renewed because their was a GOP majority in the house at the time that opposed renewal. The ban was never challenged on 2nd Amendment Grounds.



Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by reviewing courts
The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment.

en.wikipedia.org...

So no...there was no case pending before the SCOTUS



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Just wondering.... Has anybody considered that the FFs' definition of 'ARMS' was meant to include anything that the government posessed (tit for tat so to speak) in order to assure that the government remains "Of the People, for the People and by the People" which may include 'Assault' weapons, RPGs, flame throwers, cannons/artillery, M2 .50s, etc.

Seems like a multitude of dictatorships may have turned out differently if those countries had had FF's with similar forethought.......



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: erbdds

I think that's exactly what they had in mind but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Star.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Very well. We shall attempt to continue.

Understand I have a "chip on my shoulder" as well. I find it extremely frustrating when someone states that words can have their meanings changed at a whim. That is a childish game that most outgrow by the age of 5. It makes productive debate impossible and removes any possibility of learning from each other.

Incidentally I also remember that commercial. It had a connection to the phrase, in that Conrad was daring someone to knock the battery off his shoulder. The same daring attitude is used for a "chip on the shoulder"; the person has an attitude that how dare anyone knock that chip off, the chip being a metaphor for whatever hair-trigger issue they have.

Now, to some actual definitions. I was unable to find the word "militia" in your link, save in the definition of "trainbands." I did find a definition, however, on Wikipedia of all places:


A '''militia''' generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of the warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai).

In more modern language, that would seem to include any person not employed in a government-sponsored 'warrior' profession, i.e. soldier, police, etc. In other words, citizens capable of taking up arms in a battle.

I accept your definitions of "regulated" and "infringed."

Notice that the phrase "well-regulated militia" is not specified as those with the right; it is specified as the reasoning behind the right, which applies to "the people." The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was never to allow hunting, but for defense against enemies. The wording sounds like this was assumed to be enemies of the state, but I read it as applying to any danger to any citizen. That includes criminals.

So, yes, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be violated. I do disagree that such right hinges on formal training, while happily admitting I would like to see such training implemented again.

As to what constitutes "arms"... your link provides that definition as well: "weapons of offense, or armour of defense." That would include handguns, knives, rifles, semi-automatic firearms, fully-automatic firearms, RPGs, bazookas, tanks, dynamite, sticks, axes, and even tactical nuclear weapons.

I for one think technology has in fact surpassed the foresight of our Founding Fathers. I do not want anyone to be capable of walking into a store and walking out with a nuke. That is why I propose a common-sense Constitutional Amendment, to the effect that "the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment does not include firearms which are capable of continuous fire without operator action between firings, explosives capable of and intended to detonate with a force beyond 'X' tons of TNT, or weapons which are capable of launching explosives which can detonate with a force exceeding 'Y' tons of TNT." Feel free to voice an opinion on the values of X and Y.

That removes tanks, nukes, full-auto guns, RPGs, and bazookas. No more controversy; they are not protefted and can be regulated to the nth degree. The Supreme Court, regardless of who is wearing the robes, cannot make them untouchable.

It also leaves the 2nd Amendment intact.


I am not debating your personal definitions? Why would I?

No, you stated that words were redefinable. That was an exercise in sarcasm, to illustrate how inane that position was.

The words used in the Constitution were carefully chosen to have and convey a specific meaning for posterity. Any attempt to change the intended meaning of those words is an attempt to discredit and ignore the document. Ignoring one part of a document, under contract law, allows the other party to ignore the entire document at will (exception: a severability clause, which the Constitution does not contain). Since the US Government takes its authority from the Constitution, a refusal of that government to honor one part allows for removal of the government entirely.

I do not advocate such; I only explain the legalities.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Here is a website that sells fully automatic arms pull the trigger it empties the mag THIS is what liberals think they nuts are using THEY ARE NOT.
LOOK at the prices people....www.onlythebestfirearms.com...
HOW many of these shooters can afford a 31K rifle to go fully automatic?
Here are semi auto only firearms 1 shot per trigger pull
www.impactguns.com...
BOTH require background checks when bought
from ANY licensed dealer.
Unless you KNOW a person like family you are asking for criminal trouble unless you buy from a pro, in my opinion.
I bought a Scorpion from a guy and I was so worried I hocked it JUST to make sure it wasn't hot.(Got it back ,don't worry)
edit on 25-6-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7
Not only are full auto weapons priced out of reach for the ordinary person, they have a very limited supply, as they can not be transferred to a civilian if they were manufactured after 1986. The semi auto requires a typical atf form and the background check. A fully auto weapon (or anything classified are class III ) requires extensive paperwork, a special tax stamp($200-250), interview with the prinicipal law enforcement officer in your locale and months to get approved. With the full auto or class III item, the full process has to be completed no matter who is selling or transferring to who. Even as a gift to your son, you have to do the whole process and you can not remove the item from you possession until it is an approved sale and you are notified by the ATF



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

I for one think technology has in fact surpassed the foresight of our Founding Fathers. I do not want anyone to be capable of walking into a store and walking out with a nuke. That is why I propose a common-sense Constitutional Amendment, to the effect that "the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment does not include firearms which are capable of continuous fire without operator action between firings, explosives capable of and intended to detonate with a force beyond 'X' tons of TNT, or weapons which are capable of launching explosives which can detonate with a force exceeding 'Y' tons of TNT." Feel free to voice an opinion on the values of X and Y.


I am out of time, but owe you a response, albeit brief.

We are not so far apart here...

If the word "arms" has outgrown the founders foresight, would not the simpler solution be to derive their original intent vs. an amendment to redefine arms?

As far as "X" and "Y"...both forces should be limited to personal space...People able to injure themselves, but not sufficient explosive force to endanger people within a reasonable proximity. Force is not the only variable, shrapnel and construction matter, but we can limit it to a rational compromise.

The rest will have to wait until another less busy week for me...thanks for the discussion.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

A redefinition might be easier, but easier is not synonymous with better. If a circuit breaker trips in my house, the easiest thing to do is to jump it with a wire. That's not the best thing to do, however, as it will likely burn my house down. The correct way is harder: find and fix the fault. But it doesn'the burn my house down.

The Constitution is NOT a "living document." It is an exact specification as to how the country is to operate. It can only be changed by amendment... the SCOTUS' power under the Constitution does not include redefining the document, only interpreting it as it applies to laws. The laws can be struck down or upheld, but the Constitution remains.

We have lost our way on that point. Supreme Court Justice have repeatedly tried to redefine the Constitution to promote their own agendas. They are jumping the circuit breakers, and the house will burn down from their actions... in fact, I believe we are seeing that happening now.

I agree with your assessment on the variables. I would really like to be able to get dynamite again to clear rocks. It's faster and cheaper than the methods I am forced to use. I don't have a need to leave a crater.

I will be here when you get back if you wish to continue. Our last few posts seem to have been productive.


TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Personally, I'm a real pessimist and I believe the problem is human nature. I don't think you CAN "fix" that. And I don't believe this "problem" is anything new.

What is new is our belief that the world is supposed to be utterly safe or that government is supposed to stop every little act of violence. Humans never believed that before quite recently. Millions and millions and millions of people have died throughout history. People have died taking showers. Were they SUPPOSED to die? We haven't done anything to make taking a shower safer. In fact, many people have glass shower doors. It's a real bad idea but no one is going to stop them if they want to put cheap, thin, breakable glass right beside a slippery, wet surface.

We've done our damnedest to make cars as safe as humanly possible and yes, it has saved lives. But people still die in cars and what it has really done is just made cars more expensive than houses used to be. Now we almost have a few cars that can drive themselves but they actually do cost more than some houses and I'm honestly just waiting to hear that someone in one of these things caused a massive pileup because of a computer glitch.

Anyway, we're not going to "fix" human nature. Anyone who thinks we can scares me more than criminals with guns.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I doubt this issue is going to be resolved soon, especially taking into account there are gong to be the election and one of the candidates plainly stating 'I'm for (or against) stricter gun control' or something like that.
They are just trying not to lose votes and most probably in future, when we have our president, the issue will still remain as it is simply because no politician wants to lose supporters. And actually after checking out what Clinton and Trump say about gun control and stuff, well, basically, it's all the same - Second Amendment shouldn't be changed simply because we are a smart and responsible nation..of course we are, but still, not all of us..besides, according to a gun control essay data 31% of mass shooting has happened in US - not so responsible of us, I guess..also based on gun law satisfaction rate statistics there's been a significant raise in the number of dissatisfied with the nations gun laws..something should be done but the politicians are thinking of how many voters they can get..

PS I wasn't trying to offend any politicians or their supporters, I just stated my opinion



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ClaireWilson
there's been a significant raise in the number of dissatisfied with the nations gun laws..something should be done but the politicians are thinking of how many voters they can get..


That's the way it is with politicians - policies that appeal to the majority are what they'll be pushing in order to stay aboard the gravy train. Unfortunately the citizens will need to suffer more tragedies to get the 'dissatisfied' voter's numbers up to the tipping point where change is required to secure office, even if it's just token gestures at first. Significant change will take a long time but it needs to start somewhere.




top topics



 
44
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join