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: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
This reminds me I need to pickup a few more AR's soon and a few thousand more rounds and some reloading gear. Got to love the anti-gunner dems. Best gun salesmen ever.




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: imsoconfused
a reply to: superman2012

So your not American? Why would you think your opinion even matters at all?


Bahahaha....this guy.

No, you are right, my not American.

Why do you think my opinion does not matter? Is it because I brought up some good points or because you don't respect anyone else's opinion on the matter? If the latter is the case, why bother posting on an internet forum? Why not meet at a local coffee shop?


No I think your opinion does not matter, Because it does not matter. Worry about your own countries problems Im sure there are plenty to go bitch about.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I think we can agree that the same restriction they allow in voting might be talked about in relation to gun ownership.

So let's see ... at this point in time, you don't even have to show a valid US ID in order to vote. So I think that about covers the full amount of restrictions we should place on buying a gun.


+12 more 
posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document?


The Constitution is not a list of things the private citizen can and cannot do, it is a list of things the government cannot do.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: stosh64
It doesn't matter who gets appointed elected. More gun regulation is going to come incrementally, until they get what they've been after for a long time. A dumbed-down, disarmed population. They have a ways to go yet, but gun owners are losing the media/propaganda war.

Emphasis is my own.

I'm a responsible firearm owner, AND I work in IT.
What does an IT worker and a responsible gun owner have in common?

If you're doing your job right, nobody will know that you've done anything at all.

The media/propaganda war is un-winable against an enemy willing to fund and prod crazy people into going on shooting sprees. The only news you will *ever* see related to firearms will be bad news- because the good news isn't news worthy.
Chances are good that if you're in an office building today, there's more than one person carrying a concealed firearm in that building with you.
And they have been- every day.
For years.
Without so much as scaring anybody.
And that will never make the news, because it's simply not "news worthy"- Not until a 'bad guy' shows up and this ordinary citizen stops them, and is suddenly considered a 'hero' for doing their civic duty.

Back on topic, if she wants my shotgun she can come take it from me herself.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.


The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.


Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?


Sure, I'll do that right after you show me where in the document it says anything about not allowing concealed carry. Can you show me that? Could you point that out for me?


It also doesn't say you can't buy a rocket launcher big enough to blow up the moon. There is lots it doesn't say. Proof that it needs updating.


And I didn't say that it did, did I? You and the other member seem to be confused and making things up then asking me questions based off what you've made up.

Pro-tip: it is updated every time a new law is passed that regulates firearms. Every single one of those is an "update" to the amendment. It won't be amended in full any time soon, because at one end you have weirdos that think only the government should have firearms because it knows best, at the other end you have weirdos that want to own a rocket big enough to blow up the moon, and both of you are too ignorant and stupid to listen to anybody in the middle, much less try to win us over to your side without resorting to name calling and other childish tactics like stamping your feet.

Not exactly sure why you are throwing a virtual temper tantrum. All I was doing was pointing out that it needs to be updated with very specific language for the 21st century.
Pro tip: No reason to call people names because they either lack a full understanding of whatever point you were trying to make, or they disagree with you.

It is funny that you get mad about name calling like you just didn't do it 3 times in one sentence!!
bahahaha



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Rulers of this country (not us, the guys who control Hillary & Trump) will eventually take away some of these rights away from commoners. Both candidates have the same agenda, but different approaches.

They will create a massive watch list , first to limit the certain section of the population (for example : all people of a certain religion, origin etc.), eventually it will be applicable to all except the ruling class.




First they came for the ..., and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a ....

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

My guess is that they'l be coming after any semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine.

I can easily see them banning sales of such weapons.

What I can't see them doing easily is making the ownership of such weapons illegal because that would amount to a "taking without compensation" unless there's a federal buy back of such weapons. Which.....they might just do!

This may mean saying goodbye to semi-automatic handguns like the Glocks and 1911's as well as all the AR 15 types.....anything that's semi-auto and accepts a detachable magazine. That's what they're trying to do in California.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: imsoconfused
a reply to: superman2012

So your not American? Why would you think your opinion even matters at all?


Bahahaha....this guy.

No, you are right, my not American.

Why do you think my opinion does not matter? Is it because I brought up some good points or because you don't respect anyone else's opinion on the matter? If the latter is the case, why bother posting on an internet forum? Why not meet at a local coffee shop?


No I think your opinion does not matter, Because it does not matter. Worry about your own countries problems Im sure there are plenty to go bitch about.

lol, I don't really care what you believe about my opinion.

You post on a public forum, you get public opinions. In my opinion, people that own guns for reasons other than hunting, or target shooting, are all cowards. Scared of the big bad guy who might have a gun, so you get a better bigger gun.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I wonder if this could start a civil uprising
It's scary
Guns or no guns, it's way past the point of taking weapons of civilians
If I was in the US and didn't own a gun, I would be getting a few and ammo

Might be a time that my family needs protecting soon, maybe that makes me a coward

Hillary is far more dangerous than any amount of guns
edit on 1-8-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: uncommitted
Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document?


The Constitution is not a list of things the private citizen can and cannot do, it is a list of things the government cannot do.


That's not strictly true in the case of the 2nd now is it? And people on this thread seem to be stating that it shouldn't be open to 'reasonable regulation' when they are happy to what they see as reasonable amendments. You can't have it both ways and still moan about it.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
That's not strictly true in the case of the 2nd now is it?


It is 'strictly true' for the entire document, Madison et. al. were very clear on this point.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

The phrase "reasonable regulation" is totally the opposite of "shall not be infringed". So please explain to me how you justify that thought while maintaining the protections afforded by the amendment? I honestly want to know.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Might be a time that my family needs protecting soon, maybe that makes me a coward

Hillary is far more dangerous than any amount of guns


Protecting from what? The police? The ATF? The FBI?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Your opinion is opposed to the constitution to begin with. You, not having the rights protected by the constitution, have no understanding of what is being given up, therefore it has no value to you. It does have value to those who are protected by the constitution. It in no way makes your opinion of less worth, it explains why you hold no value in gun ownership and refer to gun owners as cowards.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Might as well elect Hitler-ree.

Get this over with.

"Death of a thousand cuts" indeed!

Vote for Hilter-ree and bring this festering boil to a head.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
And yes, I will refer to Hillary Clinton as a festering boil.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: stosh64

This bodes well with my personal philosophy that the US government and the muppets groomed to do its bidding, are actively involved in a long-term propaganda war to deconstruct the Constitution.

A situation that I refer to as "Death by a thousand cuts".

Agreed. I just wish my fellow American's could see it as clearly as someone "down under" does.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

No second amendment loving citizen will ever give this corrupted politician their vote, with that political stance she will kill her chances to the white house.

A disarm nation is fair game to foreign terrorism.


edit on 1-8-2016 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.


All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?


I said all the guns.

I love you

Harry

'Take all the guns.'
Do tell who would be doing the 'taking'.







 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join