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.

 

Brainstorming-Protect the Second Amendment But Also Create New Laws

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I think those things are acceptable OP. Nobody needs a bump stock. If you can't hit what you want to hit with ten bullets, you should not be using a gun.

They have had rules in the past regarding automatic guns, you could not have them. Bump stocks should already be illegal by those laws, they are very similar, all they have to do is include them in the classification. Nobody needs a fully automatic weapon. Criminals can easily get their hands on bumpstocks and their automatic weapons are not illegal in some places.

I see no problem in raising the age on some guns to twenty one years old, but I do believe we should keep many rifles and shotguns available to those above eighteen. It is nice for one person to have a gun when out berry picking, sometimes bears want your berries. The gun scares most bears away, you just have to shoot at the ground.

They should require anyone under twenty one to have a strict hunter safety course to own or use a gun, that would save a lot of accidents from happening. Make it affordable. This could help to weed out some loose cannons from access to guns. They will eventually learn how to scam the instructor, but maybe this will be something that will help to dissuade some people with mental health issues.
edit on 24-2-2018 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I don't buy the military explanation for 2 seconds people, we are talking about private ownership here, the ability to buy a weapon for personal use. You can't rent a car or buy alcohol, but you can buy a weapon that can kill in foolish and inexperienced hands, nope disagree, move it up to 21.

And I see no compromises mentioned to adapt to the 21st century and it's realities, the problem with political issues are no compromises feel like they can and should be extended by either side, this is why there is so much anger and vitriol from both sides, each side has dug into a locked position.
edit on 24-2-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I don't buy the military explanation for 2 seconds people, we are talking about private ownership here, the ability to buy a weapon for personal use. You can't rent a car or buy alcohol, but you can buy a weapon that can kill in foolish and inexperienced hands, nope disagree, move it up to 21.

And I see no compromises mentioned to adapt to the 21st century and it's realities, the problem with political issues are no compromises feel like they can and should be extended by either side, this is why there is so much anger and vitriol from both sides, each side has dug into a locked position.


Yes, but here's the thing - why do you prohibit something? With alcohol, it's because someone cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions with it until that age.

So what on earth are you doing putting kids in the military where they handle weapons far, far more deadly than any firearm they could ever touch privately if they can't be trusted to make good decisions with those weapons?

So if they can't handle a firearm at 18, why would you expect them be in the army with fully automatic weapons, grenades, etc., at 18 and have no problem with that?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
The only way forward for Americans is to sell hand guns to the public and hand guns only.

You don’t see people in the UK needing pump action shotguns to keep people off our land.

Or fully automatic machine guns. It’s insanity you even have these so readily available 🙊🤔



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


I don't buy the military explanation for 2 seconds people


Then you're being willfully ignorant. The point is that an 18 year old can carry a fully automatic weapon at "work" all day long for days and weeks on end, but somehow that same 18 year old is magically too immature to buy a semi-automatic when he's at home, and too immature to own a shotgun, and too immature to own a bolt-action hunting rifle.


And I see no compromises mentioned to adapt to the 21st century and it's realities,


Me neither, starting with the OP.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AncientPheonix


Or fully automatic machine guns. It’s insanity you even have these so readily available


They're not.

It's insanity that people keep repeating blatantly inaccurate information as if somehow, repeating it will make it true.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AncientPheonix

You need to brush up on your firearms research before you try and limit other countries right to protect themselves.

We don't own machineguns, without major federal oversite.

Shotguns shoot about 75 yards. Handguns can be hidden easier.

We are connected to Mexico, who manufactures autos and sends back the one's Obama sent over.

This ain't the UK, and the right to live will be fought here.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I don't buy the military explanation for 2 seconds people, we are talking about private ownership here, the ability to buy a weapon for personal use. You can't rent a car or buy alcohol, but you can buy a weapon that can kill in foolish and inexperienced hands, nope disagree, move it up to 21.



As some one who personally joined the military at 18 I can personally attest to the training that I received on handling firearms...many kinds of firearms....grenades and other explosive ordinance.

Can you say the same?

At 18 I was given a weapon, with ammo, and permission to blow a person's brains out if they stepped over the exclusion zone line where nuclear weapons were being kept.

At 18 I was trusted with a 22 million dollar radar set.

At 18 I received training in how to fight fires and save people's lives.

At 18 the US government not only trusted me with all that, but according to the US Constitution, said I was old enough to vote and pay taxes.

18 year olds can't buy alcohol (I could back then), or rent a car (but you damn sure can buy one and a house too, in fact, you can sign away into quite a bit of debt once you hit 18) because individual STATES decided that they can't.

You can't have it both ways (though the fcking government tries to). You're either an ADULT at 18 or 21. Which is it going to be (as though 3 years is really going to make that much of a difference). I've met 35 year old people that act like their fvcking 5 years old, and 16 year olds that act like they're mature enough to be 50.

18 you are LEGALLY an adult in the eyes of the FEDERAL government. The 21 crap is a state thing.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: stormcell

does nobody here suggesting retailers have access to other citizens medical records have any understanding regarding HIPPA?

my god


Yes, I've read about HIPPA and computer security/privacy. Medical computer systems have to have secure networks, password/swipe card protected terminals. Personal medical information has to be treated at the same security level as classified government documents.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Well, I suppose that would be one way to backdoor ban guns. Force every legal dealer to become HIPAA compliant and able to secure medical information and records. How many would be able to bother with doing that as opposed to just going out of business or dropping sale of firearms?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I've always wondered why the forefathers didn't add in stipulations to the 2nd Amendment.
Surely there must have been nut cases and criminals during their day....oh that's right, I get it now.

It's because of the nut cases and the criminals that ALL were afforded the right under the Second with "shall not be infringed" being the most important statement within the amendment.

By limiting the rights of law abiding folks right along side the criminals, and even criminalizing law abiding folks to punish the criminals, crime and criminality flourishes. Add in a pinch of f#king with people's heads with a flood of "fix it quickly and conveniently" pills, without therapy.... without justified committal to a treatment facility.. and you have what we have today...

A bunch of spoiled, spineless, over medicated, over opinionated, over convenienced, apathetic, fear induced, sociopathic 'do nothings, who think they are 'do gooders' but don't care to pull up their pants and do what is needed to preserve the union..

What I mean is NO COMPROMISES!!!!

NONE.

Life is wonderful and harsh....people are wonderful some are sick as hell...DEAL WITH IT.

Why in all that's holy would you make it EASIER to be assaulted, molested or killed??

No matter what laws you come up with ...

GUNS ARE HERE TO STAY.

You are living in la-la land if you think you shouldn't at LEAST have some type of SERIOUS protection.

If you don't, YOUR CHOICE AND GOOD LUCK.
edit on E28America/ChicagoSat, 24 Feb 2018 21:24:48 -06002pmSaturdayth09pm by EternalShadow because: add/correction



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: AncientPheonix


Or fully automatic machine guns. It’s insanity you even have these so readily available



It's insanity that people keep repeating blatantly inaccurate information as if somehow, repeating it will make it true.


Those familiar with Joseph Goebbels know exactly what they're doing.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
As for the military at 18 at least there is training & screening and control, are those recruits allowed to take those government owned weapons off base to their own homes?
edit on 24-2-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As for the military at 18 at least there is training & screening and control, are those recruits allowed to take those government owned weapons off base to their own homes?


That isn't the point.

If they aren't ready for firearms, then they aren't ready. It doesn't matter how much training and control or anything else they have.

If they can be trained to take weapons much more deadly than your average hunting rifle or shotgun or even an AR-15, and use them in high stress, life or death situations, then they can be trusted to keep and use and be taught to own lesser versions privately.

But

If they cannot be trusted to use the lesser versions privately because they just aren't mature enough ... then on what planet do you think we can put them in the military and expect them to handle that reality with even more powerful and more deadly weapons? Understand that some of them will even be in leadership roles before your proposed age of 21.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:06 PM
link   
More laws? Yeah they work so great in preventing school shootings and stuff.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Nah, your talking trained military verses civilians. A civilian that goes into a gun store at 18 that has never fired a weapon, maybe his parents were liberals that never wanted a gun in the house, whatever now he has one and he is learning how to load it from YouTube videos and his operating knowledge comes from watching movies and playing video games. You can't project your level of proficiency with weapons at that age onto all 18 year olds.


edit on 24-2-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:41 PM
link   
You do realize that everyone who breathes is "mentally ill" according to someone's definition, right? Even in the official mental health book there are lots of nonexistent mental disorders. Many of them completely fabricated in order to facilitate the marginalization of thoughts, feelings, attitudes and opinions that are not mainstream and may be a bit unorthodox (but nevertheless, valid).

The easiest excuse to take away someone's rights is to simply call the crazy. Makes perfect sense, then, that it seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion. It's supposed to.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AncientPheonix
The only way forward for Americans is to sell hand guns to the public and hand guns only.

You don’t see people in the UK needing pump action shotguns to keep people off our land.

Or fully automatic machine guns. It’s insanity you even have these so readily available 🙊🤔


Ffs...fully automatic machine guns are not readily available...nor has one been used in a school shooting ever as far as I know. If I wanted one right now, I’d have to spend thousands getting the proper licenses, then I’d have to find one to purchase...and I don’t have 20k to drop on a gun.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   
So a person that is 18-19-20 is no longer able to join the military because they cannot fire a weapon...OK. But because the drinking age is 21, let's let them buy a gun and get drunk on the same day?

Who oversees the mental health database? If someone has an addiction, any sort of addiction would they be confronted for trying to buy a gun? What deranged people actually seek help unless it is mandated? Think about the laws you are proposing before you go on spurting them about. Once there is a database it will become common knowledge and searchable to the populace and people will lose jobs over it. If some random pawn shop can search your mental health history, everyone will be able to with the means and want to do so. IF what you propose actually comes into fruition, over 50% of military would not be able to harness a gun. Non stable people, dangerous to society, etc. Thank you tax dollars.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: ketsuko

Nah, your talking trained military verses civilians. A civilian that goes into a gun store at 18 that has never fired a weapon, maybe his parents were liberals that never wanted a gun in the house, whatever now he has one and he is learning how to load it from YouTube videos and his operating knowledge comes from watching movies and playing video games. You can't project your level of proficiency with weapons at that age onto all 18 year olds.



Ah ha! Let's see if I can't lead you to that river to drink then.

You just admitted that it's okay at age 18, because of their training. (but you then warped it by saying they can't take those weapons home. Of course they can't. Those weapons are illegal for civilians to own anyways).

The key word here is "Training"

My youngest son is 15 and has been using guns since he was 9. He goes deer hunting (with adult supervision). He goes target shooting (with adult supervision), he maintains his guns by doing maintenance on them (with adult supervision). Last: he's had formal training on firearm safety and operation.

Would you be willing to accept the age limit at 18, if also purchase of any firearm means you must show documented evidence of formal firearm safety training?

At 15 years of age, most states allow our children to get a drivers permit to learn how to operate a vehicle. At age 16, they are allowed to take a test that if they pass, gives them a drivers license, which allows them to drive a vehicle with no supervision (and you know as well as I that you can kill people with that vehicle quite easily).

At 15 South Carolina does not require my son to have any formal training to hunt. He has what they call a juvenile hunting license, which was free (along with his deer tags), but requires him to be with a adult 21 years of age or older when hunting.
At 16, he's required by the state to take the hunters safety exam, which if he passes he can get his actual hunting license (and in fact, anyone born after 1972 must take this exam.....I don't since I was born in 1966....don't ask me why they did that, I haven't a clue).

So would that be a good compromise? Age to purchase weapon is 18, but you must provide a firearms safety training document?

I know a lot of 2nd Amendment people will shout "SHALL NOT INFRINGE", but at the same time I'm willing to compromise if the compromise makes damn sense. Common sense should tell everyone that you should have some form of formal training before handling and operating something that can cause serious injury or death.

The US military has proven for many, many decades now that yes, at 18 years of age, young people CAN be trained to handle deadly weapons and ordinance.

The reason I feel strongly about that is because like I said: at 18 the federal government considers you an adult, required to pay taxes if you have a job, and allows you to vote.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join