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: 14
39
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: superman2012

Which part is failed?
People protested and exposed the surveillance state to the extent the patriot act was debated in congress and some reforms were made.
As much as some people dislike what he did, Snowden and others like him expose where citizen rights and govt oppression meet.
People protest every time any gun control is suggested.

As long as people resist govt oppression how is there a fail?


Lives less restricted by government.

If you know of a place in the US where you can live free on the land, take as much water as you want, farm whatever you want to grow, raise whatever animals you want, etc, etc, etc, let me know.

I don't know why people cause such a big stink over weapons when your right to live free is gone.

Alaska is still less restricted.
Alot of areas in the midwest that are less populated are less restricted.
Do you have the freedom in your country to live free on the land?
The all or nothing approach you seem to be pushing is bs and is a strawman for gun control. If you allow any restriction in any area then you shouldn't complain about gun control. Guns(arms) are the one product important enough to the founders to be put in the constitution. To me it is about the freedom to defend ones self, which is not a right the founders had in England, as only people who were government approved were allowed to own arms.




posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

the american revolution



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim
I DON'T want an American where the people are too stupid to arm themselves with knowledge; just don't take my rights.

There was a time when the American people knew we had a constitution and stood by it. Now they wait to see that their government tells them to think. SMH Pitiful.

I don't want anyone to "Tow the same line"

Just leave my rights alone. I'm not coming into your house taking what's yours. But that is the difference in me & you. YOU feel the need to dictate to me.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: SudoNim
I DON'T want an American where the people are too stupid to arm themselves with knowledge; just don't take my rights.

There was a time when the American people knew we had a constitution and stood by it. Now they wait to see that their government tells them to think. SMH Pitiful.

I don't want anyone to "Tow the same line"

Just leave my rights alone. I'm not coming into your house taking what's yours. But that is the difference in me & you. YOU feel the need to dictate to me.



Leave your rights alone? Were you saying that when women's rights were changed? No?

So its just the rights that benefit you that you think its unfair to change, but ones that you don't agree with your happy for them to be changed?

Petrified of change.

Complaining about potential AMENDMENTS to an AMENDMENT.
No-one should be allowed to change their rights (after they've been changed already).



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim
These are rights granted to ALL American people. I'm sorry you don't care about them.

I don't pick a special group to cater to. Maybe if other people looked at things that way we would be a lot better off. Why are you bringing up women's rights? Do men not also have the right to bear arms?

And you can't just decide to change amendments.



Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[

Educate yourself....knowledge is a powerful thing.

We have laws in place that keep people from stripping others of their rights!!!
edit on 8/3/2016 by Martin75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: SudoNim
These are rights granted to ALL American people. I'm sorry you don't care about them.

I don't pick a special group to cater to. Maybe if other people looked at things that way we would be a lot better off. Why are you bringing up women's rights? Do men not also have the right to bear arms?

And you can't just decide to change amendments.



Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[

Educate yourself....knowledge is a powerful thing.

We have laws in place that keep people from stripping others of their rights!!!


I meant Women's right to vote(19th? amendment), something that wasn't in the constitution, just like the right to bear arms. They were amendments, changes to the constitution. The same constitution you are complaining that some people want to change.

Irony or stupidity?


And you can't just decide to change amendments.




Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered.[



thanks for contradicting yourself in the space of a sentence.

I'm guessing since the Amendments are final then Prohibition is still in order?
Are you annoyed that that Amendment was ratified?

Surely that's the exact thing your complaining about now?



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim
You can play word games all you like.

YOU know exactly what I was saying. I will NOT engage.

These are the rights that have been given to me! Killary want to take them away and I will do everything in MY power to stop her!

I am done with you!



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: SudoNim
You can play word games all you like.

YOU know exactly what I was saying. I will NOT engage.

These are the rights that have been given to me! Killary want to take them away and I will do everything in MY power to stop her!

I am done with you!



Haha, this always happens.

You present someone who hides behind an Amendment a logical question and they refuse to answer.
Hide behind your cliches about what your rights are, repeat the same rhetoric and then run off when someone points out all the wholes in it.

Calm yourself down, go and have a drink. The drink your allowed to have because the prohibition amendment was ratified. (something which you think is unfair)
edit on 3-8-2016 by SudoNim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Are the amendments part of the constitution? YES!

It is the constitution that gives me the right to vote, the right to bear arms, etc.

I am arguing because YOU just want to strip me of the 2nd Amendment which affords me this right.

Hillary has said that she will work to change the 1st & 2nd amendments. Again, I will do everything in MY power to stop her.

And NO I will NOT calm down. And if you are drinking before 11am maybe you have way more issues than we can deal with here.
edit on 8/3/2016 by Martin75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
Are the amendments part of the constitution? YES!

It is the constitution that gives me the right to vote, the right to bear arms, etc.

I am arguing because YOU just want to strip me of the 2nd Amendment which affords me this right.

Hillary has said that she will work to change the 1st & 2nd amendments. Again, I will do everything in MY power to stop her.

And NO I will NOT calm down. And if you are drinking before 11am maybe you have way more issues than we can deal with here.


I don't remember saying I want to strip you of the 2nd amendment? Did you just make that up?

There are lawful ways to change the constitution. Yet you are not happy if these are used?

You already gave an example of how to lawfully change the constitution?

You don't want anyone to infringe the laws to "take away your rights
" but also aren't happy at anyone using the rights from laws to attempt to change the constitution?

You are confused? Your argument doesn't make any sense.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

You fell for his BS, those rights weren't given to you, that's another basic precept of our form of government. These are natural rights endowed by our creator.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Really????

You can get back to me when people are talking about a constitutional amendment rather than just ignoring it...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

Don't fall for his rhetoric... The constitution merely enumerates those rights, it doesn't GIVE them to you...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Literally everything you said was moot thanks to one little phrase.

I'm not a gun grabber. Far from it. Feel free to check my post history at length on that point.

The problem is that you 3%er wannabes start crapping your pants any time somebody doesn't agree with your raving lunatic opinions on guns and have to resort to name calling and vague threats about moron labe and sheepdogs. The problem is not that "we gun grabbers" do anything, because there is no we. Gun grabbers are just as idiotic as the gun bunnies, and yet neither of you can see it. Nor can you see that screaming and ranting and raving and calling people names alienates the very people you need to be convincing: the moderates who very much like guns, and owning guns, but don't think a felon needs to have a gun and don't think everybody needs a howitzer in their yard. A point I made in another thread. So you go on ahead with the name calling and keyboard smashing, it's working wonders for your cause and definitely doesn't make any of you look like lunatic jackbags.

To be frank, I'd very much rather have the Supreme Court around to tell congress when it's out of line and done something illegal, when the alternative is waiting on you "tree of liberty needs blood" types to actually do something.
edit on 3-8-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2016 by Shamrock6 because: Realized my typo actually worked.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: superman2012

Which part is failed?
People protested and exposed the surveillance state to the extent the patriot act was debated in congress and some reforms were made.
As much as some people dislike what he did, Snowden and others like him expose where citizen rights and govt oppression meet.
People protest every time any gun control is suggested.

As long as people resist govt oppression how is there a fail?


Lives less restricted by government.

If you know of a place in the US where you can live free on the land, take as much water as you want, farm whatever you want to grow, raise whatever animals you want, etc, etc, etc, let me know.

I don't know why people cause such a big stink over weapons when your right to live free is gone.

Alaska is still less restricted.
Alot of areas in the midwest that are less populated are less restricted.
Do you have the freedom in your country to live free on the land?
The all or nothing approach you seem to be pushing is bs and is a strawman for gun control. If you allow any restriction in any area then you shouldn't complain about gun control. Guns(arms) are the one product important enough to the founders to be put in the constitution. To me it is about the freedom to defend ones self, which is not a right the founders had in England, as only people who were government approved were allowed to own arms.

It was never "all or nothing", I took what was said, and applied it to other items that should be more important. If people care so much about their lives being less restricted, perhaps they should be more specific when what they really mean is they want to buy whatever guns they want in any quantity they want. This is seeming more and more about that, then about rights. All I was doing was showing that that argument, is invalid.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: superman2012

Has the on-going fighting in Afghanistan escaped your notice? In my lifetime, Vietnam comes to mind as well. Let's go to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. On going revolutions in Africa.

Historically? The Peninsula campaign during the Napoleonic Wars in Spain. Most any place Rome invaded...Britain, Palestine, and Germania.

An insurrection, or Civil War here in the U.S. is something to be avoided at most any cost, not any cost, but most. You honestly believe that several million torqued off folks couldn't, with a little effort, make things difficult for a federal govt as incompetent as this one?

Revolutionaries, 'cause that's what they'll be, hide among the masses. All the drones in the world will have a bit of a problem weeding them out. All the wire taps in the world won't do any good if the insurgents don't use electronic media. The conclusion of an insurrection is hardly as forgone a conclusion as so many of you seem to think.

Why do you think the govt. spends so much time and money on trying to prevent just such an occurrence? 'cause the govt. doesn't always win.

No, I don't think they will make things difficult, I think it will be a mere annoyance. Let's keep things a little more up to date, seeing as how we are talking about a hypothetical future occurrence.
Heard of the attempted Coup in Turkey? That didn't turn out the way that you gun guys expect the hypothetical future event in the US to go, and they aren't even as well funded nor have the shiny new toys that the US military has.
Try again.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't WANT to do something, nor do I hope that the need arises for anyone to need to do anything. The problem arises with people thinking that it would be futile or not necessary, regardless of how egregious the crimes against liberty become.

People absolutely need to be ready and prepared to defend our liberties. Not just citizens... EVERY military member swore an oath to defend it. They didn't swear an oath to defend what the supreme court says it is or what congressmen or even the president says it is. They swore an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The argument that the populace wouldn't be able to do anything is a moot point, because if you think that all of the military would support the proved corrupt farce of politicians and SCOTUS you would be sorely mistaken.

Many elements of the government and the military will stand with the people when and if that time comes.

Wannabes...lol. If you think I'm a wannabe, you would again be sadly mistaken. I've been there and done that. There are MANY more like me. Sure there are occasional weirdos who would crap their pants in the real # who get off on having guns...

But to quote a great movie... "I'm a tough guy with a pussy in my hand". It would be erroneous for anyone to think differently.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

You think that that was an ACTUAL coup attempt? That was a power mongering dick head getting rid of his opposition before a coup could occur...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: superman2012

You think that that was an ACTUAL coup attempt? That was a power mongering dick head getting rid of his opposition before a coup could occur...

Jaden

Ok cool. Glad to know you know more about the actual events then what is being reported by everyone...or was that just the goalposts being moved?



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

All to many of our fellow Americans want that "nanny" state. They don't want to grow up, they want to be safe and taken care of with the least amount of effort.

I suppose that there's really nothing "wrong" about that, but that's not my preference, I prefer to earn my way as best I'm able.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join