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.

 

Second Amendment Advocates Have Blood on Their Hands

page: 34
88
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: badw0lf

The crux of the matter is people ignoring this little inconvenient truth.

Everything else is TROLLING for stars.



Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Another win for all about 'ME'.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Guns have been a large part of American culture for over 200 years. An issue this large should be voted on by the people of the country just like we vote for president.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

After watching the second to the last episode of Orville bout a 'direct' democracy.

I'm gonna say oh HELL NO.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Guns have been a large part of American culture for over 200 years. An issue this large should be voted on by the people of the country just like we vote for president.


So that means Russia has a say then!?!?!



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




Pretty hard to get that Constitutional Amendment passed.


As it should be, IMHO.

You don't change the constitution on a whim, or without serious thought.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kryties




The liberty to go about my day, anywhere in my country, knowing that I am totally safe and that the likelihood of some nutjob with a gun coming to kill me is so low as to not worry about it.


Funny so can I.

In 47 years no one has ever shot any me acting like commancheros.


Must be all those guns you have on your person, ready for that one time that punk feels lucky..



I see someone going around half cocked.

As if.


I've not got much to work with, I'm always half cocked...




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Trump supporters were around before Trump ever held or ran for any office. So bringing "Pres.Trump" into your babbling is pointless. We have a couple hundred years of "presidents" before him to "blame", if you want to go that route.
I'm all for the 2nd! The U.K., Eroupe, Australia, Canada... Aren't anything like The U.S.A. other than we speak, in most parts, "ENGLISH" and we "Yanks" had to even improve on that. Not to mention your old freedom stifling "laws".
There is no "blood on anybodys hands" other than the perp.
Why is it you libs want to blame everyone and thing for tragedy except the guilty?
Facts: In the U.S....
1. It is illegal to murder.
2. It is illegal to injure others.
3. It is illegal to buy a firearms with a Dishonorable Discharge from any U.S. military branch.
4. An "assault weapon" can be anything.
5. Very few Citizens own what the antigun crowd calls an "assault weapon".
6. A standard bolt action "hunting rifle" is basically an old-fashioned "assault weapon" with a couple hundred yards of greater use..

Every law had/has been broken by these "shooters". Other than banning firearms. What "new law" would you propose that would prevent these murders? Let me guess, banning firearms? Because Europe has no murder or crime after banning guns?
Americans are a different breed, my good European friend. We're not push over citizens. In all of the world history, out of all the governments through time, when did the "laws" stop crime?
At this point in America all a new law will do is make new criminals or another cival war. Because good American people don't like being made into criminals. Unlike in the U.K. where they just say yes yer majesty, here's my rifle, chop her up!
OP: Stop trying to understand and be thankful you live in such a civilized country that has never known violence. [Sarc] Lockup all your steak knives and hammers. I don't know, do they even have those there? Lol!



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   


The biggest obstacle to introducing gun control policies in America is a lack of political will and the force behind the big lobbies.


Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton advocated for gun control. They only played lip service to the idea.

But let me ask you this: Even if gun ownership were outlawed, how would you collect the 300M + guns that are already in the possession of Americans? What would you propose to do - confiscate all guns? Go house to house to check for guns? Offer a reward for turning your neighbor in who owns a gun? Honest people may turn their guns in. Do you think criminals would turn them in? Would the insane or mentally disturbed turn them in?

You want to throw out the Second Amendment. But you have no good answer to the above.

And since you're probably against closing the southern border, how do you stop illegal guns from coming into the country.

When you can answer all these questions, then you may have a case. But that will never happen.


edit on 6-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
"Second Amendment Advocates Have Blood on Their Hands"

talk about knee jerk.. LOL



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: carewemust

After watching the second to the last episode of Orville bout a 'direct' democracy.

I'm gonna say oh HELL NO.


You feel that Congress is doing a good job representing all of us?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Jiggly


It's folks like you who still need a militia in order to keep all the slaves and indigenous people in check, right?

Go go go, knee jerk NRAdnecks! We need bigger guns. And more of them.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Do you really want "public educated/indoctrinated" voters "voting" on your "rights"? Even if they did vote against the C.O.T.U.S. it would not be the "law". The Constitution wasn't written to just protect the "majority". That's why individual and States rights were codified into the Republic. We're not a "democracy". One sheep and five wolves voting on, what's for dinner? The libs can't have their way and they know it. That's why they keep pushing the idea of "majority".. That's why they need people from other countries that have no clue what it means to be an American to "immigrate" here and "vote".
Simply voting doesn't and can not change the Constitution. Even amendments have to be "constitutional". However, those that don't like it, are absolutely "free" to leave. I'd be against any "law" that tried to stop them, it would be unconstitutional!



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Willtell
There’s a way to solve this, really

Just latch up the psychological part of attaining a gun

Enforce the laws we already have

Make them more extreme regarding owning the big bad guns—limit how many one can buy

Let people still have handguns

Create a national, state based militia for the real gun lovers, but they have to go through a very taxing psyche tests


All of this turns a right into a privilege.


That’s sounds nice but it makes little sense

Your rights then you say depend on a document you interpret a certain way

Rights are based on power one way or the other.

You cannot buy automatic weapons, grenades, tanks so your reasoning is faulty.

One can and we do restrict gun ownership

The question is where we draw the line in that restriction



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
One day the dam will break and the foolishly stubborn folks will break down


Then it may be too late


We will have lost our souls and certainly will have lost forever the soul of this nation



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Actually, The majority of gun deaths in America aren’t even homicides, let alone caused by mass shootings. Two-thirds of the more than on average 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides

In reality taking into account that even tho the population rate has gone up homicide rates have fallen significantly which is a significant improvement from their 1980 peak and continued on a generally downward trajectory for most of the 21st century. Meanwhile, suicides are way up,

And majority of the homicides are caused by handguns yet here you are again screeching about things you know nothing about and for what reason? You don’t even live in the U.S..



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

Don’t you understand its saving peoples lives, not judging by statistics, like the kids here I cant even look at

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

There are already laws in place, as you have pointed out.
So, basically a line has been drawn.
How about,.. enforce the "laws"?
That apparently seems to be the problem. So the answer is (logically) more law? We all know what the end "law" would be. Single shot squirrel guns for everyone! Because that's what the 2nd amendment means by our "interpretation". Now, go forth, and be free!



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

How's disarming me, saving peoples lives?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Nah, just libs, I'm sure.
Study history. We haven't had slaves for awhile.
That said? Do you happen to know where there's bigger guns? I've got a couple slaves that would like to shoot them.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Whoa...whoa...whoa --- Not so fast...not so fast --- "Blood on our hands?" --- I might wind-up with having blood on my hands, when I field dress a deer that I've just bagged with a firearm or bow, but blaming 2nd Amendment rights advocates for the latest human massacre gun shootings, is such a hasty generalization that needs more forethought from you --- IMHO --- Yet I feel that you should familiarize yourself with firearms, so you can understand the true nature of the legal shooting sports. That is: shooting firearms is a Zen art form, that demands a lot of practice, which is also a favorite hobby of mine --- Especially shooting rapid-fire with my semi-auto firearms at paper or metal targets --- Though I can't afford to legally shoot legal full-auto firearms at our gun range, they still are legally fun to shoot.


Granted...the U.S. needs and has certain limited restrictions on the sale of firearms, but lets not go way overboard like the likes you guys have over in Great Britain, Australia and Canada. You've let your governments trash your firearm shooting rights. Wake-up!!!


edit on 6-11-2017 by Erno86 because: grammar




top topics



 
88
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join