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.

 

Sensible gun control

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
Are you writing about regulating a militia? I have no problem regulating the militia, but leave the right to bear arms alone. The right and the militia are two different things. The right may not be infringed and the militia must be regulated. Can't have much of a militia without some commanders, leadership and training.

a reply to: SaturnFX



This is where the 2nd is murky. One can read it and see its talking about 2 different things (militia on one side, people on the other), or they are talking about how a persons right to bear arms requires them to be in a regulated militia as a security device for the people. Both are valid points to make because the wording itself is confusing. Perhaps a person who is highly educated in grammatical syntax of the time could have better luck trying to understand what they are saying...problem is, partisanship will keep people seeing their ideological views mirrored in there verses a balanced and well researched opinion.

Personally I think the in order to own anything more than a person defense handgun, and a limited one at that, you would need to be officially part of some local militia branch where they can ensure your training, mental aptitude, etc. monthly would be a good thing and resolve a lot of issues.




posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




As far as I know the 2nd Amendment rights does not mean guns cannot be regulated by laws. Maybe I'm wrong and someone can enlightened if the 2nd Amendment means gun owners have free reign over their hobby.


What, if anything, does the following sentence mean to you?



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The first portion concerning militia, can be argued. The portion after the comma is just about as unambiguous a statement as it's possible to make.

I am not required to justify my ownership of firearms of any sort. Ever.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 07:06 AM
link   
The wording does not imply any restrictions on the right nor does it require that a person be part of any militia to secure the right. Common sense tells you that in the time of need, the militia would grow. With the right secured, the militia would have capable people already with their own equipment, at the ready.

a reply to: SaturnFX



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


It's not really that murky if you stop and think about it first, and consider what America was like when it was written.

First, realize that the word "regulated" back then was used to mean "well taken care of" or "provided for".

Next, you need to think of what it was like back then and what the Founders thought would be necessary. We'd just spent many years fighting for our freedom to produce a state in which we could live free. If you wanted to continue to live free, you may be called upon to fight for that freedom.

Back then, it was all about personal responsibility. There was no wellfare. There was no food stamps. There were no unemployment checks. There was not a lot of law enforcement, and there was not a big military.

So Joe American had to feed himself and his family, either by purchasing food from others, or growing and hunting his own food.
Joe could do anything he wanted for employment, and if he saw a demand for something, he was more than welcome to try and meet that demand and make money from it.
If Joe lived far from any form of law enforcement, Joe might have to defend himself from those that might mean to do him and his family harm. It was considered fully acceptable to defend yourself against this, and in a lot of cases thieves were simply shot and killed. This was also acceptable (being hung for horse thieving was the norm).

And at the end of the day, if the state needed to defend itself, and if Joe wanted to continue to enjoy his new freedoms, it was expect of him to come running with his arms (weapons) and show up to help as the local militia.

Therefor it made sense that in order to do all that, the citizens of our country need to be armed, and that no one should take those arms from them.

Now, one could say "okay, but today's world is not the same as it was then. We have armies, we have law enforcement, people can get their food from the store, and for many you can get food stamps and welfare checks."

Yes and no.

We do have armies...which costs us billions of dollars a year. However, in the unlikely event we were ever invaded, the 2nd amendment ensures that all of our citizens are armed against that. Take some time and read some history books and see what some foreign generals had to say about trying to invade America ("A gun behind every blade of grass....").

Yes, we do have a lot more law enforcement than we used to......in the cities. Rural areas are different, and rural areas make up most of the US. Most US Sheriffs have said the same thing many times: citizens of these areas should be armed because response time is just way too long for them to come help us.

Yes, there is lots of food that we can buy in stores. But some people do not live very close to stores (I burn quite a bit of gas getting back and forth to town). We find it easier in some cases to not only grow produce in our own gardens, but to put meat in the freezer by hunting. I put 140 pound of deer meat in my freezer last year. Saved me a lot of money on my food bill.

To me being an American means to be free...to be responsible for myself and my family. So to me the 2nd amendment is just as valid today as it was back then.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

That's it. Very eloquently said.




posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's funny how the pro-gun nuts skirt the issue:

1. Possible number of rounds that could be fired per minute (manual or automatic).
2. Magazine size.
3. Caliber size
4. Muzzle velocity


You don't get to call people 'nuts' on here. Are you a pecan.

And you're speaking about something about which you have no knowledge. Is that your normal approach? None of those things mean anything. People can carry multiple firearms, multiple magazines, and there can be multiple bad guys.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful


Its astonishing to me how many people cannot understand what you just wrote, very well written wish I could phrase it that well.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


It's funny how the pro-gun nuts skirt the issue:

1. Possible number of rounds that could be fired per minute (manual or automatic).
2. Magazine size.
3. Caliber size
4. Muzzle velocity

Every word you just posted was wrong.

"It's fiunny how" - No, it's not funny as in not something to elicit a laugh or something that is difficult to comprehend. Some people live in areas not like the area you apparently live in. There are still vast stretches of land that are not covered in manicured grass and/or concrete. In these vast areas, there are animals. Some animals are harmless, of course, but others are quite dangerous. BFFT earlier mentioned wild boar; quite possibly the most dangerous animal in North America. We have them not very far from me, and I certainly would not want to meet a herd in the mountain. They will attack, en masse, anything that appears threatening or edible. Humans are, to them, both threatening and edible. Bears are another issue... normally shy and retiring, a black bear mother will attack and kill anything that even looks like it could someday consider harming her cub. That includes people who don't even know the cub exists yet. Other places have brown bears and grizzlies... they're much bigger and NOT shy and retiring. They will kill you with one swipe of a paw and eat you, just because you happen to be there when they are hungry. Mountain lions/cougars/pumas are not given to living around people, but they do come into occasional contact with people. That's a few hundred pounds of pure muscle with a bad attitude, razor blades on their paws, and spears for teeth. Talk about a weapon of mass destruction!

Don't forget there are still outbreaks of rabies. Try tangling with a suicidal, homicidal rabbit whose bite can kill you via extreme pain and torture a few days later, using only hand-to-hand combat. No thanks; I shoot the buggers as soon as I see the drool.

It's only "funny" when someone refuses to accept that their reality is the only one that actually exists. That someone, in case you haven't picked up on it already, is you.

"pro-gun nuts" - Considering there are literally millions of guns in the hands of millions of gun owners across the USA, and the number of shootings is in the low thousands, with mass shootings in single-to-double digits every year, you are calling a group of people "nuts" because of the actions of a tiny fraction of a single percent of them. Out of those thousands of shootings, btw, a substantial number are in self-defense and therefore do not rightly belong in this debate.

"skirt the issue" - The issue is that the government does not have the right to limit firearms, or any weapons, to any extent. They do, of course, but they are doing so illegally. The Constitution is not a restriction on people, but rather a set of restrictions on government. As long as the 2nd Amendment exists in its present form, there can be, by definition, no legal restriction on firearms/weapons at all. That includes nuclear bombs.

Now, I am personally open to amending the Constitution to specifically exclude nuclear bombs from the 2nd Amendment. No issue there. We can go ahead and include missiles, and even fully automatic firearms. But nothing can legally be done until the 2nd amendment is amended. So go ahead, write your Congressmen, and let's get a Constitutional Convention going! I'm ready; it is you who are skirting an actual fix to the 'problem' you have brought up.

"1. Possible number of rounds that could be fired per minute (manual or automatic)." - You have been informed (not that it isn't self-evident) that a firearm will fire every time the trigger is pulled. So you are talking about regulating how fast people can move their fingers.

"2. Magazine size." - Are we also going to regulate how many magazines one may possess? How? A magazine can be exchanged in something like 2 seconds. The only thing smaller magazine sizes will change is the number of magazines sold.

"3. Caliber size" and "4. Muzzle velocity" - You do realize the two are mutually exclusive, right? The larger the bullet, the lower the muzzle velocity and vice-versa. That's introductory physics. So you are talking about a serious regulation that limits almost every type of firearm made. The .25 ACP might survive these restrictions, since it is akin to throwing pebbles, but the worst firearms I have ever had the displeasure of firing were .25s. The accuracy is terrible, so more unintentional injuries would be the result; the stopping ability is non-existent, so people trying to kill a deer would likely need 20 shots to knock it down so they can get to it with a knife, and a typical boar or bear would not even realize it had been hit. There is nothing sensible about an idea that removes the benefits of firearms without replacing those benefits with something else.

Yep, every word was wrong... and it hasn't even touched on the real issue: why are people going on shooting sprees? The guns aren't pulling their own triggers, you know.

Right? You do know that?

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join