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: 16
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66


What a snide pointless thing to say.


If you say so, but we both know you sing a different tune with it comes to state rights about gay marriage, and immigration.

Sanctuary states for gunz.

I can't wait for the next rebuttal.

My guess is still telling people that 2+2 equals 5.


If the OP considers that equal rights is a wider aspect of their OP, I'd be glad to discuss it with you.

You have no idea what I believe about immigration ... you're just generalizing what you think about "librals."

What you haven't done, in any way, is demonstrate that your RIGHT to BEAR ARMS has been limited, only that you can't buy certain guns that you say you don't really want anyway.

As I said, a specious argument.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.



Dude, you're a liberal with Moloch as your avatar. You lost before posting.


LOL ... well, if you say so ...

Really, Moloch? That's a new one.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am trusted with knowledge and access to something that is considered vital to our national defense...

But the belief is I cannot be trusted with a burst fire or full auto weapon... because of other peoples actions.

NOT that I think I should own one... didnt think i needed to spell that out.


You compared your access to two types of weapons.

I merely pointed out that the two types of weapons are vastly different in your personal ability to use them.

I didn't think I needed to spell that out.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

And yet, Americans own 240 million guns or so, and are buying 10 million more a year.

I think you and your guns are safe.

ETA: Oops, sorry, estimates now place the number of guns owned by Americans at 265 million.

Citation.
edit on 16-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




What you haven't done, in any way, is demonstrate that your RIGHT to BEAR ARMS has been limited, only that you can't buy certain guns that you say you don't really want anyway.


Still at it I see.

2+


What you haven't done, in any way, is demonstrate that your RIGHT to BEAR ARMS has been limited,


2 =




only that you can't buy certain guns that you say you don't really want anyway.


=5.

I clearly said I can't buy what I want.

IE infringe.

Since the second does not define arms.

I will ask it a again.

Can I go buy a new M4 ?

No.

Infringement.

And FYI if the American revolution occurred today.

The M4 would be their preferred weapon of choice. Not a musket.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Number of firearm purchases are not an accurate gauge of freedoms practiced or freedoms lost.
edit on 16-4-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I think you and your guns are safe.

I'm glad you think that.

You have, however, proven my guns are not safe exceedingly well.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Right, you can't buy what you want (even though you said there's nothing that you want that you don't already own).

Your ability to buy has been infringed, not your right to bear/own/hold/carry.

Specious.

Duh.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66


I think you and your guns are safe.

I'm glad you think that.

You have, however, proven my guns are not safe exceedingly well.

TheRedneck


LOL ... my argument proves that someone's coming to get your guns?

More hyperbole.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Of course your right to property can be taken away ... the "right" is in the holding of the property?

If your property is taken, then your right to hold it has been compromised or taken if you will.


The right has been VIOLATED, not taken. The property has been taken, but as long as I have a recourse to get it back, either by force or legal action, I retain the right to the property.

Do people who have property stolen not get it back if it is recovered?

In the case of the 2nd, the property concerned is one's life.


If you're speaking of some philosophical concept, that's all fine and well, but as I said, it's mere idealism.


Again, it depends on the individual. Most people roll over and accept the violation of their inherent rights. In my case, it would be much harder.


I don't disagree that any government is authoritarian in it's essence. However, can you suggest a better alternative?


A return of those who are elected to represent us to following the law and upholding the oaths they took. In my humble opinion 99% of them are oathbreakers and guilty of perjury.


No here has wished for a government monopoly of force


None call it that of course, but by denying the everyday citizen certain arms, the result is the same.


I have read what the Founders wanted and said extensively, and specifically in regard to the Constitution.

Their intent was that the national government would not have a standing army or in reality, any sort of standing force.

Would you also argue to do away with our military except for the Navy?


Article 1 Section 8 provides for an Army and Navy. We have both, and I have no issue with either in principle, just the illegal wars which they are commanded to participate in.


What do you imagine the well-regulated militia should be doing that it's not doing?



Practicing.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66



Number of firearm purchases are an accurate gauge of freedoms practiced or freedoms lost.


Oh, another meme, although a tiny pathetic one.

I would say that if 265 million guns are in the hands of 230 million Americans, that we're doing just fine practicing our freedom to bear arms.

What would you say?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If I can't buy an item then how can I bear that item???

And here's a follow up if you ever decide to answer... Since California limits my firearm purchases, has my ability to bear firearms been limited???



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Your ability to buy has been infringed, not your right to bear/own/hold/carry.


Another gold medal for mental gymnastics.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I still haven't been provided with an answer to who is granted the authority to even intepret the 2nd Amendment...



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Right, if you take your property back by force, you're reinforcing the idea that might equals right. I've stated that's the summation of your position.

You don't have any legal recourse because every government is merely a siphon on your "rights" according to you ... so you can't count on the state to help you enforce your "rights" in your scenario.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66




Your ability to buy has been infringed, not your right to bear/own/hold/carry.


Another gold medal for mental gymnastics.


Another gold medal for meaningless, empty statements tossed in.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Oh BTW


Dude, you're a liberal with Moloch as your avatar. You lost before posting.

That's an owl that is a replicant. One of the best movies ever.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If there are items that are guaranteed in the bill of rights being kept from the people, in this case certain firearms, then we are in fact not free.

If you need to ask for permission for a guaranteed freedom, that freedom is not there.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
I still haven't been provided with an answer to who is granted the authority to even intepret the 2nd Amendment...


Theres nothing to interpret regarding the second.

It's clearly spelled out separated by comas.

The SCOTUS's job is suppose to make sure the federal state doesn't violate the US constitution.

ALL gun control does.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

If I can't buy an item then how can I bear that item???

And here's a follow up if you ever decide to answer... Since California limits my firearm purchases, has my ability to bear firearms been limited???


Can you buy firearms in your State (I ask for the third or fourth time)?

California limits your purchases of weapons, but doesn't keep you from buying ANY weapon, does it?

Again, just because you can't buy a certain class of weapon doesn't mean you can't buy weapons nor does it mean that you can't hold the weapons you own.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join