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: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

The value is dependent on the individual. I see the value of the 2nd as the same as all the others. I would not be happy changing any of the amendments with the current group of elected officials.




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: EternalShadow
If it really were to oppose a tyrannical government, what chance do you think the public has against a trained army?
I believe that people use that wording as an excuse. If they started going door to door collecting weapons, who is going to say no when they have a group of soldiers in front of them and their family behind them?

The Rambo mentality will not last in the face of reality. The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.



My God, you sound just like the opposition to breaking away from King George.

History really does repeat itself. Wow.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

You understand the British tried to take all the gunpowder from the colonists? That was a key factor in the start of the revolutionary war.


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti




Correlation does not imply causation.


Correct! Therefore more guns does not equate to more crime.
edit on 1-8-2016 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: superman2012




It is getting worse and worse in the US and everyone seems to want more and more guns.


Do you have proof to this? The FBI stats suggest violent crime including gun crime have been decreasing for decades. It is now at one of it lowest point in decades even as gun in circulation is at the most ever.

Gun violence death has gone down, not violence. link
edit on 1-8-2016 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti




Correlation does not imply causation.


Correct! Therefore more guns does not equate to more crime.


Just as more pools in backyards does not equal more drownings.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: EternalShadow
If it really were to oppose a tyrannical government, what chance do you think the public has against a trained army?
I believe that people use that wording as an excuse. If they started going door to door collecting weapons, who is going to say no when they have a group of soldiers in front of them and their family behind them?

The Rambo mentality will not last in the face of reality. The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.



My God, you sound just like the opposition to breaking away from King George.

History really does repeat itself. Wow.

When are people going to address the post instead of the poster? My God, that is a major reason I don't participate in many of these threads.
You do know what weapons they had in the revolutionary war, right? And that we are living now, not then?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Has anybody ever ask themselves who will be benefiting from total gun ban in the US?

And why so far is all talk coming from politicians and not show?

Does anybody here really wants to know?

At the first sign of gun confiscation, or an amendment to the constitution America will fall into a rebellion.

It will be state wide protest marches and at the first sign of violence against citizens it will only incite the population to fight more.

The constitutional loving Americans will no even wait for the Supreme court to address congress amendment.

No politicians or government in the US will want to face the thousands of Americans that will rather go into a fight against the government for constitutional rights

Millions of gun owners will back each other up against the government as they will see this as a take over.

Once the rebellion starts government will face no only gun owners rebellion but the entire nation up and in arms for starting that rebellion.

No matter how careful the government plants to disarm America is never going to be as plan and as careful as not to lose lives in both sides, entire cities will burn and people will die.

Opportunistic factions will take to the streets amid the chaos and mayhem, nobody will know who is friend or foe.

The government will become the enemy of the people and the people will become the enemy of the state.

No, is not going to be pretty, peaceful and neither quiet.

Anybody that thinks that it will be easy is just been ignorant.
edit on 1-8-2016 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Well according to the stats violent crime itself have been on the decline.



time.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: superman2012

The value is dependent on the individual. I see the value of the 2nd as the same as all the others. I would not be happy changing any of the amendments with the current group of elected officials.

So the right to free speech and freedom is equally important as owning a gun in your mind? That must be why I have so much trouble understanding anyone in gun rights threads, I can't even fathom that!

Thank you very much for your input.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Something needs to change, but no one wants change. It is getting worse and worse in the US and everyone seems to want more and more guns.

I've lived in the US since 1974 and conditions have been steadily worsening for a variety of reasons. The war on drugs, the death of the middle class, the widening wealth gap, the hollowing out of the core of the US economy, Free trade and the destruction of the industrial jobs base. It all just gets worse and it all contributes to an ever larger pool of desperate poor who've got nothing left to do except profit from the drug trade, steal cars, do home invasions and kill people and take their stuff and otherwise perpetrate random acts of violence.

And with the US Open borders policy which is supported by both mainstream political parties, it can and will only get worse. Nothing ever gets better here, it only worsens. The crime that had been contained in the inner cities has spread out to the suburbs and beyond with car jackings and drive by shootings and road rage incidents where a clueless nurse going home from hospital shift is shot and killed for unknowingly cutting off a gang banger.

It just seems that the more guns you have, the better and bigger guns you have, the more people will be dying by guns...

If you dig down into the statistics and past the Liberal establishment lies, as concealed carry laws and increased citizen gun ownership has progressed, violent crime had decreased through 2014. An armed society is a polite society. Going forward however, for the average citizen to stay safe, they're going to find themselves having to use those firearms because as societal conditions worsen, we're seeing an uptick in violent crime and going forward, its only going to get worse. The country is too huge and spread out for the police to be of any use; anymore, they're more like a clean up crew that gets to the scene long after the shooting's over with.

No one wants to have to live like this; God knows I wish I could live in a civilized country with a civilized society, but being trapped in the US............that's just never going to happen. So it'll be a cold day in hell when I and my family agree to disarm.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

The 2nd secures the 1st. Easy really.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

I can answer that .
Relief is what it gives me
Relief from burglars and home intruders ,tyranny and wild animals.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

We feel if we can't fight they'll take it away so naturally...
and YES some of us DO think about fighting a lot... I didn't know foreign people were not so combatative but WE do.

I would guess it stems from a...citizens lack of trust.
edit on 1-8-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012




The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.

Yes.... the US military beat the poorly trained Viet Cong... right?
The Soviets beat the poorly trained Afghans... right?
and that was in countries where the well trained and armed soldiers had an enemy that did not consist of their own friends and relatives.

Try again.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: uncommitted
...but the amendment grants the rights to a citizen, i.e., what they can do.


Incorrect. The Constitution presupposes that we already have these unalienable rights. It places a strict limit on what the government can do to curtail those rights.


The fact that the majority of amendments happened long after the deaths of the authors of the constitution kind of invalidates any total confirmation that they would have seen each amendment as being true to the spirit of what they originally wrote - that's the job of very well paid people who argue that is the case.


If that were the case they would not have incorporated the mechanism to alter the Constitution.


No, At the time the original 2nd amendment was authored, bearing concealed arms would have been highly impractical (ever hear a mention of 'is that a musket in your pocket or are you pleased to see me?' from around that era?) and would have been more dangerous to the bearer than any potential threat to a free state. So why would they have presupposed otherwise?

Secondly, the right has been legally challenged and won on several cases and therefore is not inalienable -

www.law.cornell.edu...

That suggests a precedent for future 'reasonable regulation'. Not sure why you think otherwise.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
No one has to ever justify WHY they need or want a firearm.

Ever.

It's none of anyone's goddamned business.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: butcherguy

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'.


You would be a good citizen and comply with the unarmed Peace officer when the amendment is repealed.


Lmao. You have no idea about this country its so obvious.

Cold dead hands comes to mind.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

And there you go, leaping from 'reasonable regulation' to total gun ban. That to me is what this really comes down to, utter paranoia.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join