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.

 

[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

page: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Well, there's an interesting take on the argument at least.

Yes, if the Constitution is meaningless, then the discussion of rights and responsibilities under same is meaningless.

However, you'd have a hard time proving that the Constitution is meaningless. Care to give that a go?


Rights are inherent. They can be violated, but not given or taken away.

The Constitution can be completely repealed and replaced tomorrow. That doesn't make the rights enumerated within go away. Ink on paper did not create them. The Articles of Confederation were replaced, the Constitution can be as well.

Ultimately, the only interpretation of the Constitution that matters is mine. As anyone who attempts to take my arms will find out. Rights are only for those willing to fight and die for them.

Keep thinking some bureaucrat in a suit or black robe is out to protect your best interests...


Rights are inherent? Who says? Without the rule-of-law or some similar social compact, your "rights" are limited to what you personally can take and hold.

You're arguing from an ideal perspective. Yes, it's possible that the Constitution could be repealed and replaced tomorrow, but there is virtually zero chance of that actually happening. A large meteorite could strike and kill us all thus negating any further questions about rights or the lack of them -- that's also unlikely.

The only interpretation of the Constitution that matters TO YOU is yours. I accept that.

No one is coming for your guns; that's a fear-mongering myth.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Got to say my auto ordnance semi-auto Thompson is a lot of fun to shoot... yes its not an actual gangster style Chicago piano... but I still enjoy it.

====================

I do find it more than a little insulting that I can be trusted to work on and around Nuclear tipped air launch cruise missile on the BUFF... but certain types of guns I am not to be trusted with according to the laws... that logic seems a bit off to me.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope.

Can I go out and buy a new M4 ?

Nope.




No, your right to bear arms has not been limited.


Think before speaking.


Do you own any other firearms?

Is anyone taking them away from you?

Can you buy handguns, shotguns and rifles in your state?

Then your right to bear arms is has not been infringed.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Got to say my auto ordnance semi-auto Thompson is a lot of fun to shoot... yes its not an actual gangster style Chicago piano... but I still enjoy it.

====================

I do find it more than a little insulting that I can be trusted to work on and around Nuclear tipped air launch cruise missile on the BUFF... but certain types of guns I am not to be trusted with according to the laws... that logic seems a bit off to me.


Can you personally use one of those nuclear-tipped air launch cruise missiles against people by yourself?

I'd guess therein lies the difference between the two scenarios you've proposed.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Do you own any other firearms?


None I really want.

Sure the hell not paying over $10,000 grand for pre 86 crap.




Can you buy handguns, shotguns and rifles in your state?


Well if I lived on the East and West coast there would be magazine capacity limited.

If I wanted A Short barrel I would be SOL since it's a class III firearm.

Sure as hell can't own any smoke grenades. Idiotic BATFE classified them as 'real' grenades.

Can't buy anything without a background check to begin with.



Then your right to bear arms is has not been infringed.


So that is a proven lie.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

It is illegal to own a full auto (class III) with out paying the $$$$ and jumping through multiple loops. targetworld.net...(C lass%20III%20Weaponry)%2011-3-07.pdf



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

HurDur... just because you can't buy them doesn't mean you can't bear them duh...



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Got to say my auto ordnance semi-auto Thompson is a lot of fun to shoot... yes its not an actual gangster style Chicago piano... but I still enjoy it.

====================

I do find it more than a little insulting that I can be trusted to work on and around Nuclear tipped air launch cruise missile on the BUFF... but certain types of guns I am not to be trusted with according to the laws... that logic seems a bit off to me.


Like what? We can own fully automatic weapons as well as destructive devices. .... With a fee and on a registrar, but we can own them. What the # would you do with a nuclear tipped anything?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

I understand Gryphon's argument. It's basically that everyone has the right to own anything and the stores (states) have the right not to sell.
Is that infringing on anyone's right as per 2nd?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66Rights are inherent? Who says? Without the rule-of-law or some similar social compact, your "rights" are limited to what you personally can take and hold.


Rights derive from ownership. I.E., if you own something, you decide how it is used. There is no higher power to ask permission from.

If you are having to ask permission to do something, you don't own it.

What does it say that one has to ask for permission to defend oneself from some government bureaucrat? Who owns your body?


You're arguing from an ideal perspective. Yes, it's possible that the Constitution could be repealed and replaced tomorrow, but there is virtually zero chance of that actually happening. A large meteorite could strike and kill us all thus negating any further questions about rights or the lack of them -- that's also unlikely.


Hyperbole that misses the point. The Constitution doesn't GRANT squat. It is a document which restricts government, not the individual.


The only interpretation of the Constitution that matters TO YOU is yours. I accept that.


Who else is granted the power to interpret the Constitution? The 10th might be a clue...


No one is coming for your guns; that's a fear-mongering myth.


Never said they were, was merely stating a fact.
edit on 4-16-2017 by cynicalheathen because: Formatting



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So, you don't want any of the weapons that you don't own?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

You don't want to spend the money that would be required to acquire a certain type of weapon?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

So a component of your gun (if you lived somewhere else than you do) would be limited, but you could still own the gun, a proper magazine and ammunition?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

A short barrel weapon has been made illegal, but long barreled weapons are available for purchase?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

Smoke grenades? LOL.

Background check to buy? But you can buy, right?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

The only complaints you're bringing up are that you can't have any gun or any size magazine just because you want it.

You can own guns, of varying type, and all you have to do is be certified that you're not a criminal or a mental case?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

I would use it on the damn pocket gophers digging up my field.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LockNLoad

I understand Gryphon's argument. It's basically that everyone has the right to own anything and the stores (states) have the right not to sell.
Is that infringing on anyone's right as per 2nd?


Except it's Federal gun control laws forbidding people from buying what they have a clear right to own.

Liberal logic.

The most illogical thing there is.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Your right to own something derives from your ability to keep it.

If you are overcome and someone takes your property away, then your "right" is gone.

Your argument dissolves into "might makes the right."

I wouldn't choose to live in such a system.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

So, you don't want any of the weapons that you don't own?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

You don't want to spend the money that would be required to acquire a certain type of weapon?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

So a component of your gun (if you lived somewhere else than you do) would be limited, but you could still own the gun, a proper magazine and ammunition?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

A short barrel weapon has been made illegal, but long barreled weapons are available for purchase?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

Smoke grenades? LOL.

Background check to buy? But you can buy, right?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.

The only complaints you're bringing up are that you can't have any gun or any size magazine just because you want it.

You can own guns, of varying type, and all you have to do is be certified that you're not a criminal or a mental case?

Your right to bear arms is firmly in place.


Someone clearly doesn't understand what inalienable rights are.

Or the meaning of the words infringe,deny and disparage.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is, by definition, a limit on my right to bear arms.

Im not going to campaign for the legalization of the Thompson....but it sure would be nice to be able to legally own one.


A State limiting sales of weapons is only a limit by YOUR definition ... not the Constitution's, the Supreme Court's or any State government.

So you can't own one type of weapon, but you can (and presumably do) own firearms, right?


Color me surprised that my government would choose to bend the simple definition of words to suit their tyrannical agenda. Like that's never happened before.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66



Awesome, a meme has now been posted.

You could have just stated that you realize you've lost the argument, LOL.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It is an infringement since the 10th states that the States can not make laws in violation of enumerated rights in the Constitution.

But you already knew that



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Rosinitiate

I would use it on the damn pocket gophers digging up my field.


Then your field would become inhospitable. I can lend you a Thompson .50 cal muzzle loader. That should do the trick.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join