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.

 

Why is it okay for the Left to Suggest Repealing the 2nd but its not Okay to suggest Muslim Ban?

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Is there a Bill or proposal to repeal the 2nd amendment in Congress?




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
First, I know very few on the left who want to repeal the second, so this entire thread is a strawman. Most want sensible gun control legislation which courts would likely find was compliant with the second, no matter what the NRA says.

Secondly, "amending" the constitution is an acceptable, legally defined process. And if support for such a difficult chore could be mustered (unlikely), then clearly support must be there for whatever is being amended. That's WHY the process is so difficult.


edit on 6-10-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Stephen20

Who on the left has suggest repealing the 2nd exactly? Name some names. Otherwise please exit your soapbox, because I don't want to hear your strawman anymore.




Technically, the left doesn't suggest repealing the 2nd, what they do is basically try to pass laws so the right can't be exercised.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

They want to stop it being a right and make it a privilege.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Meh. A stout rebuttal is a stout rebuttal.

The thing speaks for itself.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Technically, the left doesn't suggest repealing the 2nd, what they do is basically try to pass laws so the right can't be exercised.

Technically, that isn't repealing the 2nd then.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
Technically, the left doesn't suggest repealing the 2nd, what they do is basically try to pass laws so the right can't be exercised.

Technically, that isn't repealing the 2nd then.


The effect is the same. It doesn't matter if the 2nd is formally repealed or not, if you can't buy a gun, ammo, etc then your right is being infringed upon.

The 2nd will never be formally repealed, but enough legislation/regulation can be passed to make it practically impossible for someone to exercise their right to bear arms. This is the modus operandi of the progressive left. Chicago basically made it impossible to be a gun owner until they lost the McDonald v City of Chicago at Supreme Court.



In McDonald v. City of Chicago, (2010), Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old (in 2010) retired maintenance engineer, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971.[7] McDonald decried the decline of his neighborhood, describing it as being taken over by gangs and drug dealers. His lawn was regularly littered with refuse and his home and garage had been broken into a combined five times, with the most recent robbery committed by a man McDonald recognized from his own neighborhood.[7] An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too unwieldy in the event of a robbery, and wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a citywide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun. As a result, in 2008, he joined three other Chicago residents in filing a lawsuit which became McDonald v. Chicago.[7]



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
Technically, the left doesn't suggest repealing the 2nd, what they do is basically try to pass laws so the right can't be exercised.

Technically, that isn't repealing the 2nd then.


The effect is the same. It doesn't matter if the 2nd is formally repealed or not, if you can't buy a gun, ammo, etc then your right is being infringed upon.

The 2nd will never be formally repealed, but enough legislation/regulation can be passed to make it practically impossible for someone to exercise their right to bear arms. This is the modus operandi of the progressive left. Chicago basically made it impossible to be a gun owner until they lost the McDonald v City of Chicago at Supreme Court.



In McDonald v. City of Chicago, (2010), Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old (in 2010) retired maintenance engineer, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971.[7] McDonald decried the decline of his neighborhood, describing it as being taken over by gangs and drug dealers. His lawn was regularly littered with refuse and his home and garage had been broken into a combined five times, with the most recent robbery committed by a man McDonald recognized from his own neighborhood.[7] An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too unwieldy in the event of a robbery, and wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a citywide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun. As a result, in 2008, he joined three other Chicago residents in filing a lawsuit which became McDonald v. Chicago.[7]



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
Technically, the left doesn't suggest repealing the 2nd, what they do is basically try to pass laws so the right can't be exercised.

Technically, that isn't repealing the 2nd then.




Oh everyone knows where they always try to go. Total ban on guns.



House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she "certainly hopes" a ban on "bump stocks" will open the door to additional gun control actions. "They’re going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so," she told a reporter at a news conference.


insider.foxnews.com...





posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah yeah. I've heard this fear factory before. It's just that gun ownership is at an all time high, and the NRA has conditioned gun owners like sheep to go out and clear the shelves of guns and ammo every time an event like this happens or the Dems even hint at gun control. I've literally stopped taking people who say things like you do seriously because it is so decoupled from reality. Go tell it to an NRA meeting.
edit on 6-10-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

"Everyone" in this case being the NRA and the gun lobby.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
1. I'm on the left and no one wants to repeal the 2nd that I've seen at all - this is a strawman argument (a false thing you've put up so you can attack it as if it's real).

2. Since there is no effort to repeal the 2nd, the comparison with the Muslim ban is moot.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ShawnTBear

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ShawnTBear
Hmm..how many people have radical Muslims killed compared to how many deaths caused by someone with a gun?



Muslims were around before guns.


The OP is trying to equate modern radical Muslims killing Americans to people with guns killing Americans. Not even the same thing, not even close.


I thought he was pointing out the hypocrisy between certain people calling for the ban of guns because some white guys killed people, thus lumping all gun owners in the same basket as criminals, but conversely demanding that a travel ban on people from certain countries rife with terrorist is a racist policy and denigrating anyone who even ponders the idea, saying not all muslims are terrorists.

But you flip it any way you like, doesn't change the facts of the matter.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ShawnTBear
Hmm..how many people have radical Muslims killed compared to how many deaths caused by someone with a gun?



Muslims were around before guns.


So ban Muslims?


Only ones who congregate in secretive groups hidden within the confines of their holy places of worship and espouse hateful and violent views.

Same as with anyone who owns a gun who gathers in secret to plot attacks on people of any given persuasion they deem deserving of violence against them.

Do you disagree?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: ShawnTBear

originally posted by: notsure1
No

just a few of Obama lies


4 pages of lies through his admin. Trump has 4 pages and he isn't even in his first year.


Thats just the 4 pages on that link. The point is they all lie


The problem also has it's basis in the comprehension skills of those who claim everything Trump says is a lie. Sometimes they just want it to be a lie so bad, they forget how to consider things clearly.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Ban all Trump supporters from buying and owning guns.


"I swear I'm not a Trump supporter. I hate Nazis. Look, see my peace symbol flag, I give to #BLM charities and I only drive my pickup because I got it cheap. That's not moonshine, it's holy water."

Taqiyya for the new political age?

You are catching on..



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
The comparison between muslims and guns is a bit obtuse, but it does have some merit. Both are potentially dangerous, depending on the individuals involved. And the most glaring difference, apart from one being animate the other not, is that one is a Constitutionally guaranteed right in this country and the other isn't.

It did not take democrat cockroaches long at all to emerge from the woodwork and scurry to the nearest press conference after the LV incident. Personally, I find THAT deplorable hillary...

In the name of discourse whose ultimate goal is a solution to a problem, I ask you to consider this:

On average, 53 people are killed with guns each month in Chicago. That is roughly the equivalent of one LV incident every month all year long. Only in Chicago the perpetrator fired much more slowly, sometimes only a few shots a day. At the end of the month, every month, the results are resoundingly similar.

So I ask you: Does it really matter how fast the bullets are fired? Everyone hears "Chicago", shrugs, and says, "Tragic but hey - what ya gonna do?" And the answer from democrats, who have run Chicago for decades, is pass more gun restriction laws.

How many times will that tactic have to fail before it is abandoned? How many more lives will have to be lost before democrats start looking for a real solution instead of feel-good politics designed only to get them re-elected? More importantly, when are We The People going to demand better from Washington?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: badw0lf



You are catching on

Actually we caught on. Apparently a lot of conservatives haven't.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The ends do not justify the means.

If the ends are "People cannot possess guns" it matters not whether they cannot possess them because they are too hard to get hold of, or whether you actually make a law which specifically bans their ownership. The end result is the same, and that result is not acceptable, according to the constitution... nor, for that matter, is it right.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Ban all Trump supporters from buying and owning guns.


Won't help much as a large part of the gun crime issue is in Democrat strongholds unless you think it the minority of Trump supporters in those areas doing all the shooting?







 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join