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: 19
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   


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.


But it IS applicable, unless you amend the amendment.
And current popular weapons are not that much different
now, as opposed to then. Our semi-automatic rifles still
perform the same task of firing bullets. They just do it
much more efficiently.




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?


It is unimportant why US citizens "...have assault rifles at home."
The intent of of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve the freedom
that the founding fathers had established--by force if necessary.




Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing?


I agree



Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category


I disagree. Criminals stealing guns is not an issue. But
governments stealing guns is an issue.

As for the rest of your post, amending the 2nd amendment
is not a problem for me--as long as it reflects the will of
the people. For example, we do have background checks
now, and fully automatic weapons are highly regulated.

And the reason this topic is so divisive...

There are mainly two types of people.
One half believes in taking personal responsibility
for their own safety. The other half believes that
government should provide for the safety of the
people.

I believe that as long as there are aggressive people
who possess weapons, it is insane to argue that regular
people can't have them for protection.




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

AWW look ... a cartoon that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Is that the extent of your argument?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad
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.


LOL your attempt to distract is absurd. I stated the case of libel and slander as evidence for my claim.

I see that you now understand that many of our rights have legal limits.

Glad I could help you understand that.




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

The 2nd amendmend was meant to ensure that the (then quite new) US could have a militia when needed.

In those days, there was no "army" to "protect" the people. The rebels that founded the so-called US were also hesitant to establish a real army, as they well knew that an army can have its own political agenda and, if it so wants, overthrow any government, legal or not.

Hence, they decided to allow "the people" to have guns, with the rather obvious intent (it is how the 2nd starts) to make every citizen part of a light-weight army, a militia. Not a real army, so: not a permanent instrument / organisation which after all might overtake the nation and suppress the population.

Given that the US now has a full blown army there is no need for a militia anymore, hence the 2nd amendment is obsolete.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85


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.

I don't think the state has any business telling people how many firearms they can own.

Not many people have automatic weapons, you know that right?

Only automatic weapons manufactured and registered with the federal government before 1986 can be bought, owned and sold.

Oh, and one more thing, define high powered please?



edit on 17-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85
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.


You seem to have one of the more common misconceptions about the 'assault rifle' issue, that being a belief that this is an argument over automatic weapons such as machine guns. It is not. Those have been heavily restricted for several decades and new manufacture has been banned since 1986. The process to purchase one is not a typical over-the-counter transaction as with most other firearms and takes the better part of a year to complete. Additionally, you can get ready to cough up $10,000 or more for the purchase price of an automatic weapon, given the limited quantities available.

The 'assault rifles' that are the subject of so much gun control discussion in the US are actually semi-automatic...just like the handguns that you believe should be legal. They're fundamentally no different and a semi-automatic handgun is capable of the same rate of fire as an AR-15, for example. Both fire once and only once with each trigger pull. Also, its worth noting that there are typically 5,000-6,000 homicides committed each year with handguns, as compared to around 300 with rifles of any kind, only a portion of which are with semi-automatic 'assault rifles'. In fact, there are literally about twice as many people punched and kicked to death in the US each year as killed with any kind of rifle. You can find those numbers here.

Myself, I don't think any additional bans are needed, nor do I want them. That being said, if I were going to ban something, handguns make far more sense given the crime statistics than do 'assault rifles'. This is also why I think the domestic gun control crowd here in the US is so disingenuous and untrustworthy when they claim to 'only' want a new AWB.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

In the 2nd Amendment text, does it say "right of the people" or "right of the Militia"?

The right to self-defense is never obsolete.

Governments throughout history have always respected their citizens and have never gone on genocidal killing sprees...



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Christ, 19 pages :l

Can't possibly respond to everyone so please don't take it personally, or as avoidance of the subject. It's clear that I didn't use or understand the term 'assault rifle' correctly so consider me educated on that one now.

There's a lot in this discussion that I agree with, and some things I don't, but that's the beauty of discussion I guess. I still think there's nothing wrong with state laws being able to restrict type/quantity of weapons purchased, and I firmly believe that being able to buy a gun in wal Mart using your ID is absolutely nuts - and pretty irresponsible.

But ultimately I do agree people should be allowed to own guns. It just needs managing carefully. I also don't think for one second that the "they're coming for your guns" rhetoric is anything other than guerrilla marketing for the weapons companies. I can't find the source right now but I read that gun sales went through the roof under Obama, and now many manufacturers and retailers are concerned with trump being potus as there's less of a perceived need to panic buy and stock up.

Still, it's an interesting one for sure. Thanks all for contributing.

Fs85



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Your not biased, you just have no understanding about the situation in the US. I dont blame you for that, you dont live here, but it does disqualify you from advising Americans about gun rights and gun control.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85
ok the reason of the second amendment is two fold one it is a check against gov overreach . orginally any weapon that was fielded by military you could keep if you could afford to own it. it allowed the people if gov started getting out of control to put them back into place. its why natzi party banned ownership of gun in germany when they took over. an armed public can be a powerful force in theory. the other part in those times people on the frontier had to be able to defend themselves from the wilderness they were facing be it bandits, rightfully so angry natives or bears and wolves, they also needed to be able to hunt. in this country we had large amounts of game that was prohibited to hunt in england at the time like deer. i too am for gun control background checks but i feel once you pass it you should be allowed to buy what you want.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

In what way am I attempting to distract??? Just because you say it's so does not make it so.

I have literally spelled out for you and posted links for verification on what the definitions of slander and libel are, I have tried to explain how those definitions relate to free speech... I just don't know how to dumb it down any more for you to understand what the words mean.

I will try one more time.

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

Cite

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. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit.

Cite

Again words are not outlawed, causing injury to another persons reputation and/or exposing them to harm is.

So until you can actually engage in honest debate and respond to my statements in the past posts, I'm done playing your silly little game.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: fencesitter85

Your not biased, you just have no understanding about the situation in the US. I dont blame you for that, you dont live here, but it does disqualify you from advising Americans about gun rights and gun control.

Thanks.


Read my OP. I haven't advised anyone. I asked some questions and encouraged discussion.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
When the second ammendment was written, the citizens were allowed to have the same weaponry as the government, including cannons. The whole purpose of this ammendment was to be able to fight back if the government turned tyrannical.
Why have militia armed with muskets, if the tyrants theyre fighting have automatic weapons, bombs, drones, etc. Right? The ammendment was written so things would remain fair in the event the government needed to be overthrown, not just for the sake of people owning weapons. In that sense, we (or more sensibly our militia) should have acess to the same type of weaponry as the government.

An assault is an action. A rifle is a tool. An Assault rifle cant exist.
Do i think everyone should have access to fully automatic weapons and grenades and such? Absolutely not. But lets face it. You can give everyone in the country a semi-automatic rifle and we can rebel, but we would be up against drones, tanks, even nuclear weapons. So we, the people, are a 10,000:1 long shot if even that close.
To truly understand any ammendment in our constitution, you need to understand WHY it is listed as an ammendment. If the right to bear arms was simply listed as a clause for people to own certain possessions, then we need to update to the right to own cars, the right buy clothes etc.
It was predicted by our founding fathers, that the day would come when the seat of power in this country
Would needed to be taken back and they wanted us, the people, to be able to do so.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

You expected different?

The one thing I would like you to take from this conversation is the degree to which some will go in trying to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. You have witnessed firsthand attempts to use commerce rights to remove the ability of self-protection, attempts to justify amendment through legislation rather than the amendment process, and attempts to sway opinion using specious and emotional arguments.

In our system of governance, these people have the same voice as I do. In many cases, they are more adamant, more involved, and cry louder than the peaceful gun owners. So there is, regardless of what someone might say today, a very real possibility that what they say tomorrow could place myself, along with millions of other Americans, in real physical danger. The naysayers don't care; they refuse to listen today as they have done for decades. I will plead guilty to purposely encouraging some to contradict themselves openly, just to prove my point.

You have been open-minded in this thread, and I would like to thank you for that. I hope this exchange has helped your understanding of the reality of the situation.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Christ, 19 pages :l

Can't possibly respond to everyone so please don't take it personally, or as avoidance of the subject. It's clear that I didn't use or understand the term 'assault rifle' correctly so consider me educated on that one now.

There's a lot in this discussion that I agree with, and some things I don't, but that's the beauty of discussion I guess. I still think there's nothing wrong with state laws being able to restrict type/quantity of weapons purchased, and I firmly believe that being able to buy a gun in wal Mart using your ID is absolutely nuts - and pretty irresponsible.


I think the main take-away here is that gun owners believe all gun owners are like them and don't consider the idea that it also means that illegals could get guns more easily, drug dealers could get guns more easily and with no restrictions, high school kids with grudges could get them easily, people in the poor parts of town could get them easily, and people of different faiths and skin tones could own a lot of guns.

I don't think Chicago needs more guns, y'know? I don't think that'll solve a thing and I do think it means more innocents caught in the crossfire.

Gun laws actually start fairly early and usually when an area becomes settled. Rifles are kept for hunting (food) but gun ownership is not common in the cities. Here in the West, gun laws became more common when trail drives came through with cattle and gunfights were common. Mark Twain (in his book, "Roughing It") writes about how often he would step outside in the morning and find 2-3 men dead in the road from gunshot wounds. My husband's uncles kept a rifle for snakes and "varmits" at the house and owned a gun, but when they went to town it was standard practice to leave the weapons at home. Guns were for defense of your animals against predators and for getting meat.

Today, the main reason to own guns seems to be "in case I need to shoot someone." This implies that people need to be shot (rather than brought to justice) and that the individual is the one who rightly should decide who lives or dies (and generally they assume that the 'live' will be the gun owner and the 'die' will be everyone else.) My sister-in-law carries a gun although she lives in a very wealthy area and always goes to upscale places, which I think is the height of absurdity.

Like Mark Twain, I'm generally agin' the practice. I can see owning one for hunting (if you like that... I don't.) But I don't like the idea of having guns around for population control... which is what it's turned into here in the States. Too many innocents die.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
What's amazing to me here is that even someone who is in FULL SUPPORT of 2nd Amendment rights to the extent that I believe that EVERYONE should carry a sidearm ... still results in the NRA faithful basically calling me a heretic.

It's astounding that even when shown the basis in the Constitution and in Supreme Court decisions (from one of the MOST conservative Justices ever on the court) the only message that gets promoted here is that I, and those like me who believe in the Constitution as it is written and the rule-of-law ... are still in some ways advocating for "gun grabs" ...

It's literally insane.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

You claimed that no other right has limitations ... I showed you clearly that the rights of speech, a free press, and of assembly do indeed have legal limits.

There's just no way I can make it simpler for you. All rights have limitations.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You need some reading comprehension lessons, the tenth states that any thing NOT addressed in the cotus or prohibited there by is left to the states or the people. Guess what the second amendment is addressed by the cotus abs it states that it shall not be infringed.

Jaden
edit on 17-4-2017 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Gryphon66

You need some reading comprehension lessons, the tenth states that any thing NOT addressed in the cotus or prohibited there by is left to the states or the people. Guess what the second amendment is addressed by the cotus abs it states that it shall not be infringed.

Jaden


Right, right ... everyone but the NRA zealots are dumb and need reading lessons.

Your beliefs are your beliefs. The facts are that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, it doesn't dictate to any State that limitations cannot be made on sales, licensing, etc.

You guys can keep rebleating this NRA nonsense, but you're mistaken.

There is no Constitutional right to buy whatever weapon you wish. Period.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Why even bring up the NRA? They are a bunch of charlatans. Pretending to support the rights of the individual while actually looking after the interests of the gun manufacturers.

They talk tough, right up until a gun bill which further infringes rights is passed. Then they bend over and spread to Washington while offering the mea culpas of "we had to work with them or else they'd take ALL your guns!"

The NRA is for protecting gun rights... That's the best one I've heard all week.




top topics



 
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join