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.
originally posted by: Eshel
Gun control, legislation, regulation... whatever word you choose. That's what we need.
My right to life, my child's right to life and any child's right to life, precludes any right you think you have to a weapon of this sort.
There's no need for an AR-15 in the civilian market. None. You hunt with shotguns, handguns, and rifles. That should be good enough. I suggest anything that has a capacity to hold more than 5-6 rounds at a time is completely unnecessary. They're just ego toys beyond that.
I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I like it.
But let's be honest, you're not going to stand up to a tyrannical government with an AR-15. Don't be ridiculous. (and if you think you are, then you probably won't pass the mental health check). Let's keep in mind, however that the constitution is a malleable document. It's meant to be pliable. I'm not saying we rescind it, but by god, we can sure as hell regulate it.
But what about (knives, hammers, cars etc)? How about we stop being silly.
Those items were invented with a primary purpose and can be used for murder. I get it. But what is the primary purpose for a gun?
Again, I'm not against all guns, but surely we can draw a line at assault type weapons. (my simplistic definition being: a semi-automatic weapon that is capable of firing more than 5-6 rounds without reloading)
Since I'm on this thought, let's take a look at another possible option. Let's keep that car comparison for a second. You have to take a test and prove you are capable and proficient at using an automobile. There's even different license classifications. Why can this not be applied to firearm ownership? You get endorsed for specific weapons and have to renew at set intervals. Seems like an option to me that would work wonders. Doesn't affect your "right to own" and only regulates the more "sporty" variety of weapons.
I'm gonna stop here before I get too long winded. I understand that this post isn't going to be the "a-ha" moment for anyone.
Only a fool would think he'd propose an idea and the whole world would just be like "holy sh*t, he's right!" lol. But I just want to get some of my thoughts off my chest and hope maybe I can open an avenue of discussion in the course.
I'll wrap up with the "licensing" idea being my favorite theory at this point. Would give us some regulation and a more specific database about who owns what kind of weapon. I'd like to think it would be a step in coupling with some other ideas that could make this country at least a little safer.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
Isn't there a way that we can come up with some kind of solution that would protect gun rights and our population from people who go off the deep end?
Can't we put our heads together to find a solution?
Instead of posting debates on the issue of rights and ownership and personal safety?
And if you think that AR-15s are all that are available to fight a tyrannical government for civilians, you're obviously uninformed.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Willtell
How many shootings have taken place in private schools, charter schools, religious schools?
Really curious about this.
Opinion, not fact.
Actually, the guarantee of a sustained life is nowhere, but the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the constitution.
Where did you come up with your arbitrary "5-6 rounds," from the cylinder size of most revolvers? From some passed gun-control legislation somewhere? From a talking point?
You can try to regulate it, but there are limits. And just because we can amend it doesn't mean that "it's meant to be pliable."
And if you think that AR-15s are all that are available to fight a tyrannical government for civilians, you're obviously uninformed. But yes, in the hands of the right group of people, AR-15s CAN fight a tyrannical government. Only the uninformed believe otherwise. Like many of us fully grasp while others do not--it's not always about the tool, but about the person/people using it. And who says that it would only be civilians joining the fight?
that arbitrary number that you keep throwing out.
Actually, once you do that, it's not a right anymore, it becomes a privilege, so, yes, it does affect one's right to own firearms if you make the simple act of ownership something that must be licensed.
would AR-15s still bother you?
only opinion and subjective statements.
originally posted by: jimmyx
i like how all the trump voters here want to protect the sanctity of the 2nd amendment to the constitution.....but, the emoluments clause of the constitution, article 1, section 9, clause 8....screw it, that one doesn't count....hypocrites...
uphold the entire constitution, or don't give me this patriotic BS....you can't pick and choose a part of the constitution you like, and say screw the ones I don't like.
Last week there was another tragic mass shooting. The media went on to make this young man a celebrity. Some, including Donald Trump, even painted him as a victim. I still don’t understand why we have to give the names of the shooters in the media. Probably because it makes a better story. CBS head Leslie Moonves said of Trump: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” The same can be said for these shootings. If stardom has anything to do with the shootings, it is irresponsible to make these people into fixtures of the American psyche. Anyone who watches Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, or most any American blockbuster would get the sense that violence, although tragic, is normal and heroic.
The personal story of this kid shouldn’t surprise us—white nationalist and animal abuser. This “lonely” guy made his vengeful killing on Valentine’s Day, but if he did have a Valentine he may have been like most of his predecessors, a domestic abuser. Republicans, bought by the NRA, talk about mental health (even though Donald Trump repealed an Obama protection on the mentally ill buying guns). The Democrats, who don’t have many organizations left that haven’t bought their silence made sure to rail against the NRA and the GOP. They are right of course but they don’t have much credibility left given how they act 99% of the time.
The mental health issue is valid too but the Republicans are trying to make all of us as mentally ill as they are. Schools are turning into prisons, in both their physical structure and their philosophical one. Prisons themselves are crowded enough to be schools. The argument what kills (guns or people) is a silly one because they both do. Who could deny that Barack Obama was mentally ill as he dropped drones around the world and expanded the nuclear arsenal? But there is also the obvious point that if Obama was the President of say, a garden club, he wouldn’t be killing as many people because he wouldn’t have the weapons to do so (Obama’s Garden Club would be snooty and pretentious I’m sure, even for a garden club).
[...]
What the latest shooting tells us is that when we pick up arms we are playing by the master’s rules. We are using the master’s tools. And we are shooting our own schools. The revolution towards peace and equality must be nonviolent. Because it seems that sadly most of us still have no idea who our enemy is.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Me? I wont fight tyranny with automatic rifles and expect to win this fight with violent means. That might be the mindset of the slaver, but it aint mine.
Which one was Ghandis weapon of choice? The way I see it, there have been more cases of automatic rifles ending the fight against tyranny than the other way around.
It's a thought worth to ponder for a while and I think you missed the mark.
Also, Gandhi is a rare occurrence
originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I know right. It's cool that we're allowed to have opinions.
I'm not even sure how to address this. The right to own a gun is somehow more important than a right to life?
How about where I said, "I suggest". Could it be that maybe I'm just spitballing ideas looking for logical discussion?
That's why there's avenues to make changes. Maybe you're not sure what pliable means? Amendments imply that it's pliable to begin with.
Most. Ridiculous. Thought. Ever. (but,hey, that could just be my opinion)
Perhaps you misunderstand. The "licensing" or "testing" or whatever would be for the weapons that fit into the "assault weapon" category. (that would have to be rounded out of course into a more specific definition). This would not affect you from buying any other firearm you wanted. And would only add one step into purchasing an AR-15. (used as a general reference so we're not typing out every weapon in the category). I kind of like the idea of a way of tracking these type of weapons. Yeah, it won't stop all, but it's a start.
This is my favorite part. I own 3 AR-15's myself and my wife has one. They are great weapons and fun to fire at the range. They have a nice intimidation factor for those people showing up on property without invitation. However, I do not delude myself into thinking that outside of the range, the sole reason for this weapon is to put as many holes into a human being as possible. Just as I was trained to do.
I agree that murderous psychopaths are the core problem. But can we at least stop making it easy for them to rack up the body counts?
(PS: I'd like to point out that you come across as pretty argumentative. I'm hoping that's just me misreading because a conversation would be more benefiting to us both, I believe.)
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: SlapMonkey
That didn't stop Christians from developing values according to another rare occurrance, either. So it aint worth to fight for a win?