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.

 

Semi-Auto Sponsorship Program?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




how much more of it do you think we're supposed to accept?


They don't accept it for the first amendment.

They don't accept it for voting.

But we're supposed to bend over and let someone else define responsible.

Shall not be infringed in the second.

The enumeration, certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which all mean the same thing.

Forget about due process and crimes be proven in courts of law.

Our RIGHTS can be determined on the whim of the mob.
edit on 15-2-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


The line should be drawn at semi autos and single shots,bolt and pump gun safety


In less than one page you just demonstrated the creep of infringement: your thread title is about a semi-auto sponsorship requirement. Neither the thread title nor the OP post itself says anything about anything else.

And now you want to extend it to "single shots," bolt actions, and pump action.

In less than one page, you've already shifted the argument. Your own argument.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky


again can you own an full auto weapon without infringement?


So once you infringe the flood gates are then open? Of course the 2nd has been infringed a pond...
edit on 15-2-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

imo in the 4th or 5th grade we should begin to teach again in schools with single shots and one could move up from there if interested. but that is all my opinion

i believe that single shots pumps and bolt actions should be the way they are now. it may not stop more violence alone but along with the responsibility of the seller to say this person buying seems to be mentally fit and a background check we could see an improvement and possibly get help for some suffering from mental instability. I also believe that medication usage should be part of the nics check. so i am not exactly on either side here



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: aethertek
The help of the NRA?

The same NRA who has been taking Russian blood money to finance these terrorist attacks disguised as "school shootings".

The same NRA who has immature idiots like this moron (who should not have access to guns) committing deranged acts of anger for no rational reason.
www.mediamatters.org...

K~


lol, damn I got a good laugh from the first comment in your link...


Why didn't he just shoot it? Does he have something against guns?



Guns and religion: How American conservatives grew closer to Putin’s Russia
www.washingtonpost.com... _term=.4be7941573d8




The Trump-Russia-NRA Connection: Here’s What You Need to Know
Did the Kremlin funnel payments to help Trump's campaign through the National Rifle Association?

www.rollingstone.com...




NRA, Russia and Trump: How 'dark money' is poisoning American democracy

The FBI is investigating the National Rifle Association to determine whether Russians illegally funneled money through the organization to help the Trump campaign.

www.cnbc.com...




The NRA Should Disclose Any Russian Ties Is it running and gunning with Putin allies?

www.bloomberg.com...

K~



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: howtonhawky


The line should be drawn at semi autos and single shots,bolt and pump gun safety


In less than one page you just demonstrated the creep of infringement: your thread title is about a semi-auto sponsorship requirement. Neither the thread title nor the OP post itself says anything about anything else.

And now you want to extend it to "single shots," bolt actions, and pump action.

In less than one page, you've already shifted the argument. Your own argument.

i think you misunderstand
i am saying those bolts pumps and single shots should be left alone
you are stuck on contrary and only seek to undermine my thoughts
edit on 15-2-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

So all the usual liberal media suspects that have been pushing a narrative, that has produced no evidence, wants us all to believe that their pet scapegoat(The NRA) is also part of the Trump/Russia fake scandal?

You people are unbelievable.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: howtonhawky


again can you own an full auto weapon without infringement?


So once you infringe the flood gates are then open? Of course the 2nd has been infringed a pond...


I do not see this as an infringement as long as a clear path to ownership remains.
prove me wrong with something other than the word infringe



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky




again can you own an full auto weapon without infringement?


Only if you have thousands of dollars to spend.

Only if you wait for the feds to say you've been a good little person all your life.

And Only if your locals sign off on it.

So nope you can't own a full auto without a hell of a lot of infringement.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky




prove me wrong with something other than the word infringe


Oh look logical fallacies.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: howtonhawky




prove me wrong with something other than the word infringe


Oh look logical fallacies.


ok then
the reason i say this is because it seems obvious that the supreme court agrees with me that as long as a path of ownership remains then the level of infringement has not reached criminal or unlawful levels.

if you could prove me wrong then there would be no restrictions on any type of ownership. but you can not
so if the definition and how you interpret the word infringe is your only argument then you have no valid points left on the table.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


i think you misunderstand


It's not my fault that your syntax makes your points incoherent. I go by what people typed. You said

The line should be drawn at semi autos and single shots,bolt and pump gun safety
Since that's what you typed, I figured it's what you meant.


you are stuck on contrary


Yes, I disagree with your idea. You said that you "looked forward to both positive and negative input on the subject..." so don't whine about people giving you negative input.


only seek to undermine my thoughts


You can think whatever you like, and I can think that your thoughts are idiotic and unworkable and explain why I think that. That's how debate and discussion works. If you're not willing to listen to counterpoints to your own position, don't enter a debate in the first place.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky




the reason i say this is because it seems obvious that the supreme court agrees with me


That's not saying much.

Because they don't hold the same view they have on abortion,gay marriage as they do for gun rights.

You can take the second amendment. They ignore it.

You can take the other amendments. They ignore it.

You can use their same argument with the 14th amendment for the above issues for gun rights.

THEY IGNORE IT.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=23148761]howtonhawky



You would be correct if we were not talking about a right. In you scenario they could outlaw all guns but a red rider BB gun and say "you got a gun for your rights".

Do you think your single shots or my red rider meets the criteria of "well armed"“ as per what the 2nd says?



]
edit on 15-2-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

do you believe that that is a good or bad thing?
btw that would seem to be legal infringement until someone changes the laws.
i hate to do it but what about nukes and such should we legally infringe upon that right?
just look at kimmy blowing up the hills over there does he have the right to destroy portions of earth?
what if we had a kimmy here in usa doing such?



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


the reason i say this is because it seems obvious that the supreme court agrees with me that as long as a path of ownership remains then the level of infringement has not reached criminal or unlawful levels.


In DC v Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the requirement by DC that gun owners keep their weapons secured with a trigger lock was unconstitutional.

So, no. The litmus test is not simply "can you own a gun or not."



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

no i do not believe that my air gun was considered when forming the 2nd
i do not think they even gave thought to the style of weaponery at the time other that what the majority was armed with.
so the semi auto or what ever they were at the time were not widespread but they did have one or two guns at the time that could spit many rounds. they had cannons too

imo the police do not need semi autos either and they should not be getting surplus military weapons nor should you have a state of the art missile launcher



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky




do you believe that that is a good or bad thing?


All the vitriol surrounding boom sticks is a bad thing.

The mob can be convinced of ANYTHING.

Which is why that piece of paper was created, to begin with.




btw that would seem to be legal infringement until someone changes the laws.


Violating almost the entire Bill of Rights out of mass hysteria is not legal.

They've gotten away with it for so long, and they've not been called out on it.

That needs to change.




i hate to do it but what about nukes and such should we legally infringe upon that right?


Don't bring nukes to a gun fight.

Hardly anyone wants one of those, nor could they afford one, and they are only a one shot deal, and there's no place to set one off.

Testing bans, and all that jazz.




just look at kimmy blowing up the hills over there does he have the right to destroy portions of earth? what if we had a kimmy here in usa doing such?


I don't care about what Kim does.

What I do care about is the usual suspects trying to turn the United States of Dysfunction in to a police state like No Ko, and China, and RUSSIA!

Check out their gun laws.

We are sinking fast into one.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

They didn't consider television or the internet when writing the first amendment either but it still applies.
I would say they put more thought into future weapons than future modes of communication.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: neo96


i hate to do it but what about nukes and such should we legally infringe upon that right?


The term "arms" typically refers to a long arm weapon in the range that a single person would use that would deal the destructiveness of one person fighting. You noticed they did not use the term "cannon" or other heavier category weapons as part of that right though they did have many categories that they could use too and not just "arms"...they could have said "any weapon know to man" but they purposely used "arms".
edit on 15-2-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join