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.

 

Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

page: 10
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You need to wake up, there's more to the world of guns than sports.




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: marg6043

I KEEP running into people who say they don't understand what say,is it the CELLPHONES?
DO I EVER confuse YOU?
I'm talking a BIAS line where somehow there is a short circuit that CUT across the english language where they can't read ,with appropriate comprehension.
I DOUBT he's lying....


It's your grammar. It sucks.

Also, what is a "bias line" and a "short circuit that cut across the english language"?

You guys make very little sense.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

You need to wake up, there's more to the world of guns than sports.


Correct. The thing is, I don't fantasize about what the guns could be used for. You guys do and that is a problem.

You need to come back to reality and get a damn grip.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Yeah some people do need to get a grip.




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Actually, the government just needs to leave people alone.

It's about government infringing. Poking their noses where it doesn't belong.

It is none of their business. Period.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No I don't I know ,this a fact. I would do it too as a result.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

DID SHE answer?
I didn't ASK one of the afflicted people... I already KNOW you are lost.
MOST liberals are.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: butcherguy

WAIT a minute the Vietnamese were beaten IN THE field,but politics decided the victor.
I don't think we found it worth while to preserve France's colony.

Politics decide the victor in nearly every war.

What would the politics be like in a war where the American people faced off against the military?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The government will cease to exist if American comes to that, Butcherguy, we as a nation will be no more.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yeah, I suppose a state could....

Except that the rights, privileges and immunities of the people of a single state must be equal to the rights, privileges and immunities of the several states.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Everyone would lose because it would balkanize us.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

DID SHE answer?
I didn't ASK one of the afflicted people... I already KNOW you are lost.
MOST liberals are.


One of the afflicted? What have I been afflicted with?

Am I "diseased" because I refuse to believe that a revolution is coming in which us those of us that own firearms get to run around killing people? Am I "lost" because I don't fantasize about over-throwing the government?

Like I said. You guys are a threat to my right to bear arms. You make us all look like fools.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: introvert

Yeah, I suppose a state could....

Except that the rights, privileges and immunities of the people of a single state must be equal to the rights, privileges and immunities of the several states.


I wish someone would explain that to California...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: introvert

Yeah, I suppose a state could....

Except that the rights, privileges and immunities of the people of a single state must be equal to the rights, privileges and immunities of the several states.


I'm not sure the P and I clause applies to this issue.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Who says it's coming?
WE got this mess covered,I'm talking you down NOW.
THEY JUST tried a social revolution against the Republic, it's failing.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Now going back to the issue of Hillary comment on reasonable regulation

What is there to regulate that is not already regulated?

Can people see the irony in this


From 1994 to 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the possession and further manufacturing of semiautomatic assault weapons that were capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Various types of pistols, shotguns and rifles fell into this ban, which did not restrict semiautomatic assault weapons that had been legally obtained before the ban went into effect. But the law stipulated that the ban would be in effect for only 10 years, and although proposals were put forth to extend it, the bills died in Congress.
With the assault weapons ban expired, there were two major federal statues that regulated the sale and possession of guns: the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968.


Gun control since 1934 Check


The National Firearms Act taxes the manufacturing and sale of guns, and it requires that gun distributors register all guns with the attorney general, and relay sales information. The Gun Control Act of 1968 builds on that law, requiring that gun manufacturers and salespeople be federally licensed. The act also prohibits the interstate sale of guns. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Prevention Act was passed. Named after White House press secretary James Brady who was injured in the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to require background checks for those purchasing firearms


All guns required registration, Check
Federal licensing, Check
Background checks, Check



In 1993, the Brady Handgun Prevention Act was passed. Named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was injured in the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, it required background checks for those purchasing firearms who were not already licensed to carry them (those who were already licensed include police officers and other law enforcement agents).


Background checks revised, Check
Everybody licensed to purchase fire arm, check



The law did specify nine groups of people who were not allowed to legally purchase firearms, including convicted criminals who have received a prison sentence of more than one year, individuals who have been committed to mental institutions or have been flagged as being "mentally defective," unauthorized immigrants, individuals who have been convicted on charges of domestic violence, and those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military.


People that are ban from purchasing firearms, convicted criminals, the mentally impaired, unauthorized immigrants, domestic violence offenders, and dishonorably discharged from the military, check


The law also puts an age restriction on purchasing guns as well: 18 to buy firearms classified as "long guns" (rifles), and 21 to buy firearms classified as "short guns" (handguns).


And last but no least age restrictions, check

abcnews.go.com...

Ok, now a question what is Hillary going to legislate next when it comes to gun control?

After all this only banning guns comes next.

And this is the federal level restrictions it doesn't even touch the state level ones.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Do you even know what regulated means??? It means well supplied, outfitted and trained, not well controlled...

It would defeat the purpose of the people being armed if they were well controlled by government.. LOL...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

LOL... Knowing what they are intended for and preparing to use them for that if necessary, is NOT fantasizing about them... Jesus, you act like people are stroking themselves while cleaning their rifles...lol..

The only person here in fantasy land is you, thinking that curling into a ball and waiting for someone to rescue you is realistic...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The only threat to the right to bears arms is that of the government. If you really cared about the threat to the right to bear arms, you would be against any infringement of that right by government.

If government is held in check as they are supposed to be, the second amendment itself prevents any infringement on your right...

You sound like most lefties here, attempting to shift the blame away from the real cause to those you oppose.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You must not understand the nature of the US govt. Courts are NOT the final arbiter of truth. The PEOPLE are the final arbiters of truth.

Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward. That liberal courts can't get past that and like to manipulate its meaning for personal reasons has no bearing on it.

Look at history, people always get complacent and allow govt. to abuse their liberty, in the end, it never works out well for the government, but hell, what do I know, who cares... "Let them eat cake"...

Jaden


edit on 1-8-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join