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: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

So basically the 10th trumps the 2nd?


Not at all; they all work together.

The Second Amendment makes it clear that AMERICAN CITIZENS have the right to bear arms.

The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the States themselves (and every American is a dual-citizen of a State as well) have the right to pass such legislation as they deem fit SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T take away the 2nd Amendment right.

The Heller decision in the Supreme Court made it very clear that even in the case of the Federal level (the right to bear arms) there are reasonable limitations as there is with every right. Our rights usually end at damage done to another citizen.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But how does the part "shall not be infringed" come into play with the 10th? It's pretty clear that you cannot pass ANY laws on it even at state level.
Not sure I understand what you mean.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fencesitter85

You may be noticing an almost religious zeal here among some.

This demonstrates the successful marketing strategies of the NRA in the last 40-some-odd years.


What would you like to see?

No Semi Auto's?

Whats your actual position on this?


I've stated my actual position.

The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, as is the 10th.

NRA acolytes want to debate endlessly about styles and ammo and etc. to no meaningful end.

Take it up with your State legislature; that's why it's there.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

But how does the part "shall not be infringed" come into play with the 10th? It's pretty clear that you cannot pass ANY laws on it even at state level.
Not sure I understand what you mean.


"Shall not be infringed" means that the innate right of a citizen to hold arms can't be taken away.

However, the Tenth gives States the clear right to decide what weapons will be for sale within their boundaries, how those can be purchased, etc. etc. etc.

Also, the rights provided to a CITIZEN are not guaranteed, for example, to those "non compos mentis" ... children, the mentally ill, etc. or those who have had their civil rights removed (as with criminals.)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85


As an aside, this always surprises me. If someone's shooting at me, I'm pretty sure I'd be firing carefully down the sights to conserve ammo and maximise my chance of hitting something .. surely spray and pray only works for a few seconds of covering fire?

There are several different approaches to combat fire, which is what you are discussing.

If I am in a fairly safe location, i.e. behind a solid obstacle or not under direct fire because I'm hidden, the sniper technique is best: aim carefully and make every bullet count.

If I am about to come under direct fire, I would use point and shoot... aim for center of mass, but do it quickly and be ready with a second round (I have actually trained myself to fire twice without thinking in that situation). The goal becomes less about conserving ammo than trying to pop him before he pops me.

If I am in a chaotic situation, i.e. a shooter or several shooters mowing people down in a chaotic atmosphere, I will use the spray-and-pray. I may not hit the target, but the tide of ammo coming in their direction will likely cause them to panic and try to hide, giving me time to do likewise and get into a better position. That is the most dangerous position to be in, and I want to not be in it any longer than I absolutely have to.

If you will notice, the criminals typically are the ones using spray-and-pray. Only someone who is totally unfamiliar with a firearm would do so unnecessarily in an actual combat situation (I have just let myself go wild a couple times mowing targets during practice, but that was in a controlled situation and just for the thrill). It then follows that the problem with guns is not due to the guns, but due to the shooters misusing the guns because they are only using them for destruction.

(As an aside, whenever I see some abject idiot holding a gun sideways in that "gangsta-style," I have this powerful instinct to slap the color out of his face, take his weapon, and only give it back when he brings someone with actual intelligence to claim it. It is impossible to aim accurately that way, as the sights are designed for vertical use.)

As an earlier poster mentioned, the problem is not that we have too many guns... it is that we have too many criminals roaming the street looking for guns. Keep them in prison where they belong, or make the activity they did legal. Don't compromise my safety and usurp my rights because someone doesn't want to keep criminals locked up.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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.


Often said but not entirely accurate, and certainly not in line with the principles. Congress was given demonstrations of early "machine guns" more than a decade before the 2A was written, they were certainly familiar with the principles involved and they weren't stupid men - they would have known that technologies involve. There are also linguistic issues with how the meaning of certain words have evolved over time. The word "regulated" is guaranteed to start a bun-fight, but it's generally seen as the equivalent of "kept in good order, well prepared, etc" rather than the modern "tightly controlled by the government". At the time, the "militia" was every male in a certain age range, the idea being that everyone had a duty to pick up a gun and fight in defence of the Constitution.

The principle behind the 2A is that the people should always be in a position to fight back against the government if necessary. It's not surprising really, when you consider that some of the first moves made by the British leading up to the war involved attempts to control and seize firearms. The encounter at Lexington, considered the start of the War of Independence, was triggered by British troops attempting to find and seize cannons that had been stored there.

Also, you're throwing around the term "assault rifle" which is a non-term with no real meaning but lots of suggestive leverage. Imagine if the newspapers kept referring to a Ford Escort as a "Main Battle Tank", and asked "why are we allowing people to drive around town in a Main Battle Tank? Why does anyone need a Main Battle Tank? Let's talk about common sense Main Battle Tank control!" That's exactly how it sounds to us pro-firearms folk when you use that term.

As for keeping them at home for fun - why not?


originally posted by: fencesitter85
- 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?


Because that involves trusting the government to be a fair and partial arbiter. They are not. One of the recent issues actually involved exactly this, with large swathes of people being (illegally) deprived of their rights despite being perfectly capable of safe ownership.

If the government has a list of criteria it can use to remove your rights, it will work hard to ensure that you fall under those criteria.

The 2nd Amendment is all about the people and government not trusting each other - with good reason, both historically and philosophically. It rather goes against that healthy mutual distrust if you then give one side the right to readily disarm the other. The hurdle for doing so must remain ridiculously high, and it is for the people to police themselves if a wrong'un gets their hands on something.


originally posted by: fencesitter85
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.


The 2A is as valid today as ever, perhaps even more so despite it being undermined so much and for so long. The wording might raise issues but the principle remains exactly the same - "the only way for the power to remain with the people of the United States, is for the people to retain the ability to throw down a government that attempts to claim that power to itself". It is the part that underpins the route from soapbox to balletbox to ammobox, and is the single most defining element to the USA as a nation-state, making it fundamentally different from any other nation state that has ever existed.


originally posted by: fencesitter85
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.


It is entirely possible to build a system that would satisfy the background check advocates with the "no registration" advocates. It is impossible for that system to last more than a week before being subverted and abused by the government.

That is the issue with background checks. Nobody with an ounce of sense trusts the government enough to accept any further mission creep or sly extension of power.

Also, historically, registration leads to confiscation. I say that as someone who had firearms confiscated when handguns were moved to section 5 in the UK.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

IMO you are bringing in another problem all together. If we as a society had better enforcement of crimes, the need for background checks would not be needed.

If the courts (societies proxy in criminal adjudication) deems a person "rehabilitated" enough to release into society, why should we deny that person any of their rights??? And if theses persons are not fully "rehabilitated" then why are we allowing them to be released???

As far as people with mental problems, how do you determine they have a mental problem and more importantly who determines???



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



However, the Tenth gives States the clear right to decide what weapons will be for sale within their boundaries, how those can be purchased, etc. etc. etc.

You mean like the stores have the right to sell guns to whoever they want to? I can agree with that. But people still have the right to own ANY gun and the right to buy guns by ANY means. (And I can agree with the states having the right to not bring certain types of firearms in).



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

I have no interest in compromising my rights away or having them limited.

Freedom is too important to me.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




The Heller decision in the Supreme Court made it very clear that even in the case of the Federal level (the right to bear arms) there are reasonable limitations as there is with every right. Our rights usually end at damage done to another citizen.


They got it wrong.

Then we should treat the first the same way.

People can only say word at a time.

People should be required background checks before getting to say anything.

And posts are only allowed to hold 5 words.

The first was rewritten as the same time as the second.

So there we are.

ALL things being EQUAL.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66



However, the Tenth gives States the clear right to decide what weapons will be for sale within their boundaries, how those can be purchased, etc. etc. etc.

You mean like the stores have the right to sell guns to whoever they want to? I can agree with that. But people still have the right to own ANY gun and the right to buy guns by ANY means. (And I can agree with the states having the right to not bring certain types of firearms in).


No, people do not have the right to buy guns by any means, nor do they have the right to buy any gun (or other weapons) as they deem fit. That is a matter for the State government to regulate.

You and I and everyone else is not only a Citizen of the United States, but of our own individual State; we are also subject to those laws.

Of note, many State place no restrictions on gun purchases, FWIW.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

I am also pro guns. And I honestly dont believe our guns are going anywhere. I can walk into my local wal mart here in mississippi to buy groceries and an ar 15 with a 20 round mag if I choose to. The problem is the crazies being able to do the same. Anybody with an ID saying they're 18 can buy the same ar 15 and the employees will escort you to your vehicle with the gun. No waiting period. Then you can walk right back in to purchase all the 223 ammo that you can carry. I love america.
edit on 16-4-2017 by TripleSavage because: savage



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again why are you trying to bypass the "shall not be infringed" part? That part I do not understand. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that EVERY CITIZEN has the right to bear arm.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

And there are legal restrictions on speech, the right to assemble, etc., usually at the point when the exercise of those rights harms another person.

I know this is a tender issue with you Neo; however, your example is ludicrous and you know it.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

So basically the 10th trumps the 2nd?




Our rights usually end at damage done to another citizen.


How does my right to bear arms damage you or any other citizen???
edit on 16-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: fencesitter85

Are you under the impression that the "assault" rifles (fully auto) are not well regulated?


Assault rifles is a non-term, don't fall into the trap of assuming it has a sensible meaning. He's using it in the standard catch-all sense of "anything that doesn't look like a 300-year-old hunting rifle" that has been pushed by the media for years.

It's all about controlling the language. "Assault rifle" was a comparatively recent invention to control the language to make certain types of rifle "evil" because of the way they looked, not because of the way that they functioned.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again why are you trying to bypass the "shall not be infringed" part? That part I do not understand. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that EVERY CITIZEN has the right to bear arm.


I'm not bypassing it.

Having the right to bear arms doesn't mean that a State cannot proscribe the weapons that will be for sale in that State, or how they will be purchased.

You're merely repeating the absolutist interpretation of the Second that the NRA has promoted; as I said, that approaches religious faith for some. If you're one of those people, you're not going to accept any limitation on what you perceive to be an absolute right.

However, historically and judicially, there are limitations on every civil right.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

So basically the 10th trumps the 2nd?




Our rights usually end at damage done to another citizen.


How does my right to bear arms damage you or any other citizen???


Your right to bear arms doesn't.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you are saying that the citizen in a certain state that limits the sale of certain weapons cannot just go to the next state and buy certain weapons?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
As far as "guns going away" of all the tinfoil fringe ideas this is the most ridiculous.

Brought to you regularly by the NRA and the Gun Lobby.

There are 240 million guns in the hands of Americans, and around 10 million more a year go into those hands.

It's quite simply fear-mongering to promote the fear that "the government is going to take away my guns."



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join