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: 18
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: enlightenedservant




For the record, I'm pro-gun but also pro-gun regulations. To me, it's no different than being both pro-car and pro-driver's license.


For the record it's either or.

Not trying to have it both ways.

That's your opinion. Clearly we disagree.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It may be a straw man but it is still a valid comparison, a State defining the parameters of a protected right.

So I'll try asking again are you OK with States defining any of the parameters of rights protected in the Bill of Rights???

Can you name ANY other protected right that States limit???

And you're only bored because you are afraid to honestly answer the questions.
edit on 16-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: added

edit on 16-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Ok, cards on the table: I'm an Englishman of 31. I follow global politics as much as I can. I'm a centrist; anti-Trump, anti-Hillary, some liberal opinions and some conservative ones; it depends on the matter at hand. Please don't start calling me a liberal snowflake or any of that playground rubbish - let's have a conversation.

I'm pro-guns, but also pro gun-control. I'm not trying to start a partisan slanging match or a left vs right debate. I'm just wanting to have a discussion regarding proposed gun control laws. I'd like to get some opinions from anti-control supporters, regarding what you believe and why you believe it. This isn't me saying 'you're wrong'; it's me acknowledging that I may be missing something obvious or compelling which is skewing my views. Hang up your liberal or conservative hat; it's not a team sport - don't argue just on the basis of doing the opposite of what your opponents say. What do you really, really think?

Here is my understanding thus far - which again is not trolling or trying to rile anyone up. Hence this not being in the mud pit. So please respond accordingly and we can have a productive discussion; hopefully.

- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today. Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun? Surely the words "Well regulated" support the notion of gun control laws? Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.

- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing? If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go and buy a gun without some checks on their psychiatric health, any criminal records, history of depression etc. Surely this is just good logic? If you have a wife/kids, wouldn't you feel safer knowing that not just anyone can rock up and buy a gun?

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category? I understand there's an argument here on the basis that such records being hacked could make households a target for people who want to steal guns. I'm not quite sure where to stand on this one, but I don't think I'd try to break into a house if I know the home-owner has a gun.

I guess those are my main queries. Why don't people accept that the 2nd amendment was written in 1791, and therefore it's sensible and rational that it may be time to update it? It's a completely different world. And I absolutely can't understand the objection to background checks - please educate me on that one. I can't see a single possible justifiable argument against it in a non-partisan discussion.

Obviously my views are inherently a little biased by my opinions and emotions on the subject, but I just don't see why this subject has to be so divisive. Background checking does not mean anyone taking away your guns - it's literally making you and your family more safe.

Thanks in advance for constructive discussion!
/fs85


OK...all well and good. Now I'm going to throw a single wrench into the works and you can decide how or if it changes your stance. Assume as I and many others do, that the government of the USA is corrupt and wishes to disarm the citizens in order to control them further. Consider a government that under the right leaders (Clinton) would begin taking the income of its citizens and distribute what it thinks we should have. Think farm animals.

Would you then think it is OK for them to regulate guns...or anything else for that matter?
edit on 4/16/2017 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

By the definition of a straw-man argument ... it's fallacious.

Both State and Federal law proscribe limits on the rights in the Bill of Rights ... ever heard of libel? slander? fraud? trespassing?

Every right has limitations. As to the Second, in most States there are little to no restrictions even on purchase.

There are far more legal restrictions on speech, assembly, freedom from religion and if Mr Trump has his way, against a free press.

This is a manufactured issue.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Arms are not guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bear them is.
Your logic fails me.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66




Arms are not guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bear them is.
Your logic fails me.


36 States have no requirements for registration, no licensing, and no limits on purchase.

This is a non issue. How's that logic?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66




Arms are not guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bear them is.
Your logic fails me.


36 States have no requirements for registration, no licensing, and no limits on purchase.

This is a non issue. How's that logic?
This means that 28% of the states do have some kinda limits.

Thats an isssue. How's that logic?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66




Arms are not guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bear them is.
Your logic fails me.


36 States have no requirements for registration, no licensing, and no limits on purchase.

This is a non issue. How's that logic?
This means that 28% of the states do have some kinda limits.

Thats an isssue. How's that logic?


LOL, well, why don't you take it up with those States. Let them know that you'd like them to do things your way.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66




Arms are not guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bear them is.
Your logic fails me.


36 States have no requirements for registration, no licensing, and no limits on purchase.

This is a non issue. How's that logic?
This means that 28% of the states do have some kinda limits.

Thats an isssue. How's that logic?


LOL, well, why don't you take it up with those States. Let them know that you'd like them to do things your way.


Decision Making for Dummies says thats not a rational option.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66




Arms are not guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bear them is.
Your logic fails me.


36 States have no requirements for registration, no licensing, and no limits on purchase.

This is a non issue. How's that logic?
This means that 28% of the states do have some kinda limits.

Thats an isssue. How's that logic?


LOL, well, why don't you take it up with those States. Let them know that you'd like them to do things your way.


Decision Making for Dummies says thats not a rational option.


Of course it isn't. So perhaps you and the other NRA zealots should stop crying that your rights are being taken away because you can't buy a certain style of weapon that you want.

There is no State that has banned the right to keep and bear arms.

Its an absurd and childish argument that because you can't tell a given State how those people govern themselves that someone has taken something away from you.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sigh... you really need a dictionary.

"li·bel
ˈlībəl/
noun
noun: libel; plural noun: libels
1.
Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation"

Cite

So you would only be punished if your published words are "damaging to a person's reputation" the act of publishing the words is not illegal or prohibited.

"slander. n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed"

Cite

So you would only be punished if your spoken words "harm the reputation of the person defamed" the act of saying the words are not illegal.

What protected rights do fraud and trespassing laws infringe upon???


This is a manufactured issue.


No it's not

Again:
Are you OK with States defining any of the parameters of rights protected in the Bill of Rights???



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

I need a dictionary?

Are there laws against libel? Slander? Fraud?

Now that you know what the words mean, perhaps you can understand that they are all based on verbal or written speech ... does freedom of speech ring a bell?

Are those limits on the unrestricted absolute freedom of speech?

Why yes, yes they are.

Here endeth the lesson.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are really dense or are purposely being obtuse.

I literally spelled it out for you, the act of printing and or saying the words is NOT illegal it ONLY becomes punishable under the law if it damages another persons reputation.

You are not being punished for saying the words you are being punished for the damage done

Pfft... Lesson indeed

Again:
Are you OK with States defining any of the parameters of rights protected in the Bill of Rights???
And:
What protected rights do fraud and trespassing laws infringe upon???
edit on 16-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

LOL. It's really funny that you think i'm the dense one when you can't even seem to understand that libel and slander are CRIMES.

What designates a crime? Would that be restriction under the law? LOL what a maroon.

Perhaps you should look up fraud as well ... you may find it has something to do with a certain kind of speech.

As far as trespassing why don't you assemble a group of likeminded folks and go down to City Hall and camp out in the lobby. You be shown rather quickly that you don't have the right to assemble anywhere you choose.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

So if we say guns hurt you is it bad for your reputation? I dont know you very well.:-( there is too much talking today isnt it?
But then how do i know you feel bad about your reputation in some cases? If guns dont hurt you, your reputation cant be hurt too maybe?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If I call somebody a bunch of names and or make false statements about them, that person has to prove that my words damaged their reputation, if that can not be show to be true then I will not be punished by the State for my words or statements.

I honestly don't know how you can't understand this.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xbeta

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85



- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today. Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun? Surely the words "Well regulated" support the notion of gun control laws? Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.


- The 1st amendment was created in a time where current communication means didn't exist, so my thoughts are the freedom of expression, as written then, is not automatically applicable today. Also from my understanding, the wording "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." surely doesn't apply to an individual's right to protest an individual company's practices just for fun? Surely the words "petition the Government" support the notion of regulated speech? Also, it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.

Alright, there are ways to change amendments, and should the republic decide that the amendments be changed, they need to go through that process. The second point I want to bring up is the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) are meant for the following purposes:

- Restrictions on the government (not the people) and therefore all others should follow this example, outlining rights in which the people have against their government. Not restrictions.

- The Bill of Rights is UNIQUE as well: "The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. ... Unlike other amendments, the Bill of Rights amendments were submitted as a group and ratified together. So in many ways they can be considered part of the founding of the government linked directly to the original constitution (www.quora.com...) and were essential to ensure these rights. "Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty." (www.billofrightsinstitute.org...) which we can see today with overreaching federal governmental policies the idea 'all else is left up to the states' has been eroded. The states were to function as independent units under a federal umbrella, so imagine say there was one governing body (say the EU) which made arbitrary laws for all of Europe so now France and the UK must abide by the same practices regardless of what is best for France vs the UK.

- Some hard-core 2nd amendment supporters believe the spirit of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the populace was AS ARMED as the Federal Government to ensure against tyranny. In their view? The well regulated militias should have every bit of hardware that the US Government has.

But if you really want to know the spirit in which the 2nd amendment was written, why not see what the people who actually wrote/influenced it it said about it:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams

It is a dangerous place to think because old weapons that caused massive death are not as efficient as new weapons to cause massive death that the founding fathers and subsequent leaders couldn't envision that in time there would be these more efficient new death weapons. More soldiers died in the Civil War than any other American conflict, with those oh so antiquated weapons that they weren't concerned with regulating.
edit on 4 17 17 by KaDeCo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gryphon66



That pic would be appropriate if anyone was trying to actually take away your guns. They're not.

Some great discussions over night chaps but it is descending somewhat into the usual LOL UR AN IDIOT ping-pong match.

I appreciate everyone's input and it's been educational for sure. Overall I still believe firmly in gun control, but sensibly implemented. Self defence seems to be the main argument, which is precisely why I'd want a hand gun if I could. But I also think a state should be able to limit you to certain quantities and types of guns, as high powered automatic weapons just seem unnecessary to me.

But that's just my opinion. I fully acknowledge that your government is corrupt and not trustworthy (before anyone gets upset, yes the British govt is just as bad) so I can understand people feeling suspicious and intent on having zero restrictions.

Honestly I don't think there will ever be a solution that everyone is happy with. That's life I guess.

I'll bow out now as I didn't want this to turn into the mud pit, but it looks like it's leaning that way. Again I appreciate everyone who had some constructive input - it's been interesting!

Have a great day.

Fs85



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join