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.

 

Banning assault weapons again.

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag

What is dubious is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by gun "enthusiasts" who highjack it to justify their "right" to own an assault weapon.




How is it dubious? The right to bear arms is not a right to hunt rabbits its a right to be armed to protect yourself and youre family from ANY THREAT.

Can you poiint out ANYTHING in the document itself or in the writings of our Founding Fathers that points to anything different? An argument could easier be made that we had a right to Tanks and Surface to air missiles than that we DON'T have a right to an assault rifle.



People who refuse to acknowledge the context or intent of the Amendment so they can enroll it in their otherwise undefensable position.

There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment protecting the right of individual citizens owning assault weapons. Any interpretation otherwise is dubious.


How do you figure this? Show me the documentation that the right was limited? Show me ANYTHING from the Founding Fathers that says we were not allowed to have the same weapons as the Government? Do you have ANYTHING to back this claim other than your fear of firearms?




What is the justification for allowing the proliferation of assault weapons?

[edit on 1-4-2005 by Black Flag]


Where do you get your justification FROM THE CONSTITUTION or even the words of our Founding Fathers that they should NOT be allowed? Or is your opinion that we should not be allowed to have them enough?

WHERE DOES IT SAY WE CANT HAVE THEM? where does it leave ANY impression that that was NOT what they wanted?

You want everyone to prove we should have them but you offer NOT ONE PIECE of evidence that they would have NOT wanted us to be armed on par with the military. Show me where they didn't want us armed and I will continue this debate till then all you have is YOU claiming we shouldn't have them without any evidence that that wasn't exactly what they wished. Private citizens owned CANNONS back then so what makes you think they were afraid of an armed population?

Cant find it can you?




posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Amuk,

Can you explain to me why in the 21st century you need a gun.

Can I stress the word need. I am not asking why you think you can have a gun. I am not even asking why you might want a gun.

I am simply asking why you need one.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
If you can have an "armourment" doesnt that mean you can have a nuclear armourment?



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
I am simply asking why you need one.


Why shouldnt I have one? Can you give me a reason?

I like to hunt and I live in the backwoods. By the time the police arrived at my house, if they could even find it, we would ALL be dead. A man that cannot defend himself, his family, his country, ect deserves what he gets.

This is all just beating around the bush though can anyone show me anything in the Constitution that LIMITS my right to self protection?



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
If you can have an "armourment" doesnt that mean you can have a nuclear armourment?


You could come closer to arguing yes to this than no to so-called assualt rifles. The point behind the second admendment is for the population to be armed (or at least be allowed to arm itself) on par with the government. Period.

They had just fought a war against a government using this same armed population and were not shy about stating over and over that the only FREE man is an ARMED man.

I for one would be more worried about the weapons our GOVERNMENT has than the ones the guy accross the street has.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Hi all, I own a gun and plan on geting a few more, Do i NEED them? Hmm Do people NEED a expensive jewelry, or a fancy car or a and absurdly large house?

Its not a matter of what I NEED, its a matter of its what i like, its a matter of its My right to own them, Have I ever shot you? have I ever went on a killing spree?
have I ever broken into your home and robbed you at gunpoint?

No, so stop trying to punish ME and others like me for the crimes of a few morons, In all seriousness, how many of you people have ever actualy been a victim of any of the crimes you use as justification to take away MY rights?

I would venture to say very few.

Also why is it, That so many of you non-americans care so much about our gunlaws?



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Can you explain to me why in the 21st century you need a gun.


Have you ever been to a ghetto? Heck, some places (like LA for example) would even justify full automatics.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules

Can you explain to me why in the 21st century you need a gun.

BHR


Until outlaws, random rampage shooters, terrorists, and other people bent on causing lethal harm become extinct, then and only then will it be unecessary to own a firearm.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
So you guys believe in a detterant system?
Can i point out that is one of the most dangerous systems every created next to the alliance system..



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Amuk,

Nice to see you using that favoured trick of those who cannot argue their point, answering a question with another question.

I was hoping to have a serious discussion with those of you on here but since you have all answered "we want a gun cos we want a gun" or "I want a gun for the same reason I want a fancy car or jewellry", I can see I came to the wrong place.

I did not realise this was the NRA room.


Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Amuk,

You must have missed it while you were banned, so I will repeat it. Although I am pretty sure that you decided to ignore what was stated. That seems to be a favorite tactic of some people (no names) who are willing to do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to make thier point.

I never said that the Constitution was dubious. What I said was that some peoples interpretation to justify their radical position is dubious.

The Constitution is Solid. Some peoples use of it is not.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I like to hunt and I live in the backwoods. By the time the police arrived at my house, if they could even find it, we would ALL be dead. A man that cannot defend himself, his family, his country, ect deserves what he gets.

This is all just beating around the bush though can anyone show me anything in the Constitution that LIMITS my right to self protection?


To answer your points,

1) You like to kill other animals.
2) Any man puts himself, his family, his country etc in danger, deserves what he gets. Furthermore, try learning to defend yourself as opposed to preparing to kill other people.
3) Nothing in the Constitution limits your RIGHT to a gun. However, that does not make it RIGHT for you to have a gun. As an aside the Constitution is outdated and needs changing.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag

I never said that the Constitution was dubious. What I said was that some peoples interpretation to justify their radical position is dubious.


And I asked, which you ignored, for you to show me where my interpertation is dubious. Show me anything to point to the fact that the Founding Fathers did not intend for us to be allowed to arm ourselves on a par with the military.

As said before a better arguement could be made that we should have the right to have a Tank then could be made that we shouldnt have so-called assualt rifles.

Back up your arguement with something from them to support your case and I will continue.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
1) You like to kill other animals.


Nope..... I like to EAT other animals, I fish too but the thought of me killing a fish doesn't make you all misty eyed does it? Are you a vegetarian? If not you just have someone else kill them for you.



2) Any man puts himself, his family, his country etc in danger, deserves what he gets. Furthermore, try learning to defend yourself as opposed to preparing to kill other people.


Other then throwing you and some others into quivering hysterics how does me owning a gun put any of the above in danger. I spent two years protecting my country with a gun and have used on twice to protect my family. As far as learning to protect myself until the arthritis became too bad I TAUGHT self-defense. We had classes for women, children, we even taught the Police department take down techniques and son still runs the Do Jo. I was also in the Army and even did a little free lance bounty hunting when younger so REAL WORLD self-defense is something I am a bit of an expert on.

I hate to break it to you skippy but its only in the movies does an unarmed man disarm and beat half a dozen armed punks intending him harm. Even in our classes we stressed that hand to hand was a last resort in the real world and that we suggested them to buy a gun (We even taught that class too)



3) Nothing in the Constitution limits your RIGHT to a gun.


Bingo



However, that does not make it RIGHT for you to have a gun.


Excuse me? That DOES make it right.



As an aside the Constitution is outdated and needs changing.


And who are YOU to say it should be changed? I personally think it is one of the finest crafted documents in the world and the fore-sight of those who wrote it is amazing.

But I guess you know better then those silly old Founding Fathers right?



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules

Originally posted by Amuk
I like to hunt and I live in the backwoods. By the time the police arrived at my house, if they could even find it, we would ALL be dead. A man that cannot defend himself, his family, his country, ect deserves what he gets.

This is all just beating around the bush though can anyone show me anything in the Constitution that LIMITS my right to self protection?


To answer your points,

1) You like to kill other animals.
2) Any man puts himself, his family, his country etc in danger, deserves what he gets. Furthermore, try learning to defend yourself as opposed to preparing to kill other people.
3) Nothing in the Constitution limits your RIGHT to a gun. However, that does not make it RIGHT for you to have a gun. As an aside the Constitution is outdated and needs changing.

Cheers

BHR



BHR

I, for one, would very much appreciate it if British subjects would refrain from commenting on our Constitution and what we, as Americans, need. We tried it once your way, if you care to remember. The whole damn reason we had to arm ourselves in the first place is because we were being repressed by an overseas power who saw it fit to confiscate our property, garrison their soldiers in our homes, and tax us into poverty. We promptly armed ourselves, told you to piss off, and then kicked your butts back to England. After it was all over we told ourselves Never again will an oppresive government take away our rights to live free and prosper. Part of that promise involves never allowing ourselves to be disarmed.

American society is not about catering to those who think they know whats best for us. We have a deep, viceral hatred of being told what is best for us, even if it really is what's best. It's part of our national identity. We decide for ourselves, and the opinions of the rest of the world be damned. Thats bevause we have seen how you live, and in many cases we came here to get away from the likes of you.

Its never about what we need. Its always about what we want. Call it selfish and arrogant, whatever, thats your opinion. But we didn't get to be a "hyperpower" and a symbol of democracy and economic greatness by allowing ourselves to be weakened for the sake of "safety" or "what's right" or "common sense" or whatever reason anti-gun people decide to choose that day. The moment we start allowing ourselves to be told to hand over our guns because its "the right thing to do" is the day that the US ceases to exist. Never again. Not in our time. Over our dead bodies.

Why do I need a gun, semi-automatic rifle, or assault weapon? Because, as an American citizen, it is my right to own one if I should choose to do so. Can you say that in GB? I have read that recently your rights to own a weapon have been curtailed, even revoked. Whats next? Do you enjoy having your government remove from you rights that your ancestors and former countrymen fought to instill and preserve?

Our Constitution is just fine, and as far as i am concerned, its meaning is crystal clear. If I were you, I would be worrying about your own situation....

Cheerio

Pyros



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Funny way of remembering it pyros...
See as I remember we let you have it...
But as history remembers it you and the french fought us and since the french where involved this brought a whole new level to the war....hence us not wanting to continue a worthless fight...

But hey its all opinions and interepretations...oh and BTW whats wrong with us commenting on your constitution americans feel quite happy to comment about our neighbors and cousins as cowards.....



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
There's no reason to start slinging cow droppings across the pond in either direction here.


Whose history is right aside, Pyros is mostly correct about the roots of the so called "gun culture".
Obviously it was considered important enough, by the founding fathers, to come right after the right to free speech and religion!
What it really all comes down to is that we don't trust ANYONE. We will never be ruled or for that matter invaded by another nation. As things stand right now I would pity any army attempting to enter our territory. Even WITHOUT the American military. The only choice they would have is total destruction of everything and everyone here.

The previous ban did absolutely NOTHING to curb gun crimes with the banned weapons because there was virtually none to begin with!
Every item on the list of banned weapons was nearly impossible to conceal. I can't think of any liquor store robberies in the recent past where the perp used a $1500 AR-15 instead of a piece of crap Chinese 9mm handgun he bought for $50 from a junkie.
Just out of curiousity, why aren't you getting after the Swiss for all of the REAL Assault weapons they all have? Why aren't they all lying in pools of blood from shootouts in the streets? Just wondering.




[edit on 6-4-2005 by Fry2]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Pyros,

For someone from the US to say that someone from one country cannot tell those in another what to do in their country is laughably hypocritical. When the US stops telling others what to do then they can demand that right from me.

As for my government taking away my right to own a gun. Fine by me. Never wanted one, never needed one. They also took away my right to own a nuke.

As to your "Constitution" and the right to gun ownership, go ahead and keep killing each other. See if I care. If this makes you happy who am I to stop you. If the sight of dead kids who have shot themselves whilst playing with the toy they found in Daddy's sock drawer is ok with your "Constitution" then who am I to argue.

There is nothing like subjugating common sense and your responsibilities as a human being to a 200 year old piece of paper.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 7-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]

[edit on 7-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
If more guns make a country safe, then america is the safest country in the world.
Of course we all know better.

[edit on 7-4-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   


There is nothing like subjugating common sense and your responsibilities as a human being to a 200 year old piece of paper.


I happen to be quite fond of that 200+ year old piece of paper. Without it we would have no rights other than what the government decides gives us.
In my opinion it is not just any old piece of paper, It is the most important piece of paper in the history of the U.S.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join