18yrs old - too young to own guns - yet 16yrs old - Old enough to stipulate gun policy?? - madness

a reply to: Alien Abduct

No, it's just my life doesn't revolve around ATS. I only check my replies when I have time. I don't even use my cell phone much because it takes forever to use my browser (I Don't have an expensive Iphone). I did send you a reply though.

a reply to: amazing

Temper tantrums rarely have an opposing point of view, but no one enshrines those children as modern day saints.

Just sayin' ...

a reply to: craterman

Maximum self-defense for what? Are you trying to defend your home from a group of zombies? A heard of elephants?
I'm sure a simple hand-gun would be enough protection from an intruder unless you're a terrible shot.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: craterman

Only a fool argues to put weapons in the hands of those who would murder them.

Yeah. Like the people who say cops should have assault weapons.

Fools.

a reply to: craterman

Come get em then. We're waiting. Oh, you might want to bring your... Hahahahahah Never mind.

Your post is a perfect example of the violent mentality of "some" gun owners. You think threatening someone with a gun will help your cause? You're the perfect example of an irresponsible gun owner! I'm surprised you didn't have enough sense not to post such a comment on a public site. Whether it was your idea of a Tongue-and Cheek joke, it was in poor and foolish taste.
Instead of personally attacking someone who doesn't agree with you, debate the issue.

a reply to: WeRpeons

I don't even own one, but I understand the sentiment.

We have the right to keep and bear arms which is really an unalienable right to self defense. Without that, all the other rights in the entire COTUS are so much mush because we don't have the power to even try to stand up for ourselves an defend them should our government decide we don't "need" them either.

You let the first right be oppressed, and the others will soon follow.

a reply to: WeRpeons

How many times have we debated this issue, yet it comes up after every mass shooting. It's tiring. It's getting to the point where we may just need to exercise our rights rather than talk about them since talking has yielded zero results. There's nothing irresponsible about saying come and get them. It's what james madison said multiple times.

a reply to: Dfairlite

How many times have we debated this issue, yet it comes up after every mass shooting. It's tiring. It's getting to the point where we may just need to exercise our rights rather than talk about them since talking has yielded zero results. There's nothing irresponsible about saying come and get them. It's what james madison said multiple times.

It's tiring? Say that to the parents who lost their children due to the recent school shootings. Ask yourself how would your perspective change if your child or loved one was a victim of gun violence or gunned down with an AR-15? Many historical scholars believe the second amendment was created for the main purpose of maintaining a militia. The second amendment was simply written for a different time.

As for the threat, it's the insinuation of using gun violence to protect a gun is really disturbing. It was unnecessary and I really don't care if the Pope said it multiple times. The post was a direct attack at me for my personal opinion. If the poster doesn't like my opinion, debate me, but don't personally attack me.

If a law was passed where gun owners would have to hand over their guns, would someone really shoot an officer who was just following orders to do so? Taking a life just for the purpose to keep a weapon sure doesn't sound like a person who respects human life.

a reply to: ketsuko

We have the right to keep and bear arms

But in what context were the founding fathers referring to? They explicitly said "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."

“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)

a reply to: WeRpeons

If someone entered a crowded room with an AR-15 as compared to a hand gun, which gun do you think would claim more lives? There's no comparison.

This doesn’t answer the question tho. Why ban the gun type that is responsible for like 5% of gun deaths and is used for hunting, as apposed to banning the gun type that is responsible for like 70% of gun deaths and IS ACTUALLY DESIGNED for the SOLE purpose of killing people?

It’s people like you that think that civilian class AR 15’s are actually assault rifles when in actual reality they are just the same as any other simi-automatic rifle that have been in use for decades.

Just because Someone puts a cool looking machine gun stock and assault rifle style for grip and sights doesn’t make it an assault weapon dude.

They make B.B. guns that look like nine millimeter pistols, does that make them 9mm pistols?

The simi-automatic rifle has been legal and in use for over 130 years and now you want to ban it because it is used in the deaths of like 10 kids a year out of over 330,000,000 people in this country? 2,000 college kids a year die of alcohol poisoning, I don’t hear anyone crying about how we should be banning alcohol.

Last point. The second amendment doesn’t afford us the RIGHT to bare arms just so we can hunt. I think you should try reading it one day. And if you don’t like what it says then good luck changing it. Until then, that RIGHT “ Shall NOT be Infringed.”

You see? It’s a RIGHT as in a god given RIGHT set forth by the number one raining law of this great nation called the constitution. You can’t just make a law banning guns because that would go against the constitution and no law shall stand against the constitution. So if you want to take the guns then you gotta change the constitution first. And like I said, good luck with that because believe me to put it lightly, the odds are not at all in your favor.

a reply to: WeRpeons

English, it's a tough language.

"A well educated elite, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Does that mean only the elite can have books? Of course not, it's quite obvious that it's simply providing and explanation of why the right of the people being able to keep and read books is important.

Also, if you read federalist 46 you'll see that they believed the militia to be everyone. So even reading it wrong, with context, makes it clear that it was intended for everyone.

a reply to: WeRpeons

One of my family members was on lock down at the jr high, a block away from MSD in parkland. She lost friends in the shooting. I have children in school, so I've thought a lot about this and I've talked to my kids about it. My attitude would be unlikely to change. I don't blame objects for what people do. I don't blame alcohol or cars for drunk drivers. I don't blame tobacco companies or plants for the ills of smokers. So I won't be blaming guns for the actions of a psychopath.

If a law was passed where gun owners would have to hand over their guns, would someone really shoot an officer who was just following orders to do so? Taking a life just for the purpose to keep a weapon sure doesn't sound like a person who respects human life.

That's a very sheepish attitude. Absolutely, most gun owners would. We are not a docile people. We will not be denied a right to defend ourselves and our property. In fact, we have had training exercises in my neighborhood should the blue helmets ever show up to do such a thing (as obama was trying to give them such power). The line in the sand for most americans is gun ownership. You may take little infringements on our rights here or there, but you don't touch the one amendment that gives us the teeth needed to take our rights back. We have put up with abuses of the other amendments because we have the ability to take action with the 2nd if those abuses become tyrannical.

a reply to: WeRpeons

You have a source for that quote? Because it is incorrect.

Well regulated meant that we needed to keep working arms. The militia are farmers and regular folks who spent time tring to survive their day to day lives, not report monthly for drills. In fact nothing in our constitution even hints at this.

Using the definitions of the day provides a more accurate clarity.

No debate. It is not up for discussion. When most of you idiots figure this out it will be too late.

a reply to: WeRpeons

For whatever may come. You don't even see a threat, and you presume that it will come in a fashion that a handgun will be proficient. That is not prepared, it's stupid. And who are you to want to limit my rights? A fool? An enemy?

a reply to: WeRpeons

That is the left's problem, they think they can make a gun free, violence free world, and they can't. Bad guys get guns, even guns that are illegal. It takes a world class idiot to think that a murderer cares one damn bit about a gun law. But that is your position. And you argue against your own rights. Really amazing and sad.

a reply to: DJW001

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They were expected to muster and train. The number of musters per year varied from state to state. The Second Amendment was essentially a continuation of a medieval English law that required subjects to purchase their own arms to save the crown the expense of acquiring them in times of war. North America is unlikely to be invaded by Vikings, Normans, or Saxons.

a reply to: craterman

It takes a world class idiot to think that a murderer cares one damn bit about a gun law.

It takes a world class idiot to think that the death penalty will stop a psychopath. No-one, repeat no-one wants to take away any of your rights. The NRA is lying to you. There is no such thing as "gun rights." Guns do not have rights, people do.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I have often wondered if those who are so eager to ban all types of guns would have a change of heart if they were ever on the receiving end of some gun fire. I know the quickest way to turn a "war hawk" into a dove is to shoot at them, so I wonder if the same effect would be shown here?

No! I am not saying we should take these kids out for target practice. I am just speculating if some personal interaction with guns would give them some truer perspective in their judgement.

a reply to: DJW001

Im not going to argue there isnt a whole broader context to debate on the topic. What i WAS disputing (ironically) was that the Constitution is clearly requiring militia activity (ie, enlistment, drills, etc) as that is not supported anywhere else within the document.

Now...we could debate your statement, but i am on mobile and itll have to wait.