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.

 

1791... Time for a change?

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe



The difference here in France is that we have laws updated on a regular basis in order to protect those who do not have firearms.


Here in the US we have the 2nd Amendment to protect OURSELVES from the burgeoning criminal element that is awash in firearms. And no...........no one's seriously going to try to disarm MS13, (that's a violent Salvadoran gang in case you missed it over there in France).

The difference is that the US isn't France; you can probably live safely and move about more or less safely without firearms. That's simply not the way it is in the US. No one's safe anywhere, not even in their homes if the homes are in a city or a suburb near a city. And, keep in mind that as of 2014, it was estimated that there were approximately 24 Million people with felony convictions in the US: www.libertariannews.org...

By the same token, its estimated that there are only about 766,000 law enforcement officers in the US as of 2014.
blog.skepticallibertarian.com...




posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: eriktheawful

And horses.

See...we aren't all bad. We like the furry horses, too.


Trains...actually that's something I think we have in common in many ways with the UK. They love trains too. In different ways, but it's still trains.

I think we should use Trains to unite us!




posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

www.politifact.com... -meter/article/2017/oct/02/difference-between-automatic-and-semi-automatic-we/

It states this on that page---

"You can still purchase an automatic weapon, because existing guns manufactured before May 19, 1986, were grandfathered in. That amounts to somewhere around 300,000 registered automatic weapons, which can cost thousands of dollars apiece because of their limited availability.

Generally speaking, manufacturers haven’t been allowed to build new automatic rifles to sell to the public since then.

To buy a fully automatic rifle, a prospective owner must pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and pass a federal background check that shows no record of domestic violence or felony convictions. The process can take months.

Some states like California, Iowa and Kansas, ban private ownership of automatic weapons under any circumstances. But many states, including Nevada, allow it as long as the owner has complied with federal regulations."


Is this wrong?



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: Kurokage

Sir, I am honoured that a member with 3 million stars would recognize my lowly contribution. ( I even misspelt honor for ya). LOL


You "honor" me sir with your comments!!

We both have so similar but so different cultures that it must drive both sides crazy that we can't see why it's so different sometimes??
edit on 26-3-2018 by Kurokage because: spelling!!



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

American hops have taken over your beers. That was me.

The first time I was asked to go to the store to get some Yorkshire puddings, I spent an hour in the ice cream freezer before I asked a bemused Tesco employee.

BTW, I used to work weapons systems on F-15E's at Lakenheath, so in effect I spent 8 years protecting my British brethren from bad people, LOL



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

www.politifact.com... -meter/article/2017/oct/02/difference-between-automatic-and-semi-automatic-we/

It states this on that page---

"You can still purchase an automatic weapon, because existing guns manufactured before May 19, 1986, were grandfathered in. That amounts to somewhere around 300,000 registered automatic weapons, which can cost thousands of dollars apiece because of their limited availability.

Generally speaking, manufacturers haven’t been allowed to build new automatic rifles to sell to the public since then.

To buy a fully automatic rifle, a prospective owner must pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and pass a federal background check that shows no record of domestic violence or felony convictions. The process can take months.

Some states like California, Iowa and Kansas, ban private ownership of automatic weapons under any circumstances. But many states, including Nevada, allow it as long as the owner has complied with federal regulations."


Is this wrong?


It is not wrong at all.

None of those guns are what is being discussed here. What is being discussed are nonmilitary weapons like the AR. As I mentioned, the military weapons cost tens of thousands and are not in circulation. They are held by collectors. I know a couple of these collectors.

If we start seeing those weapons committing crimes, then they become relevant. I should also add: the platforms in use in 1986 are not what is in use today (unless you are a jihadi), and even those formerly military weapons you refer to would not pass muster in modern military use.
edit on 3/26/2018 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

You mean like how you put the steering wheel on the wrong side. It was embarrassing getting gas....errr...petrol and then getting in the wrong side of the car. Did that ONCE..and once only.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24


Thank you for your service here at Lakenheath and at least you can see arguments from both sides and also how bad press, with blown out of proportion "news" on both sides of the pond likes to show the "other" in bad light, just to keep them in business.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
to the OP:
fear should not dictate the law, why change the law over an issue that's being exaggerated by the media to seem worse than it actually is?

and what does the year have to do with anything? are you really so arrogant to believe modern humans are somehow wiser or superior than a person from 1791?

maybe your people forgot but when the time comes you'll come to regret your naivety and arrogance over your intellectual and cultural superiority you think you possess.

anyone can be smart but not everyone can be wise, the wisest man knows himself and knows humanity, knows how foolish we really are. things like a constitution exists to protect people from that foolishness, from the emotion crazed mob a democratic system has the habit of creating.


edit on 26-3-2018 by namehere because: i ramble on too much

edit on 26-3-2018 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

People do not have full auto, or military style equipment.

I mentioned earlier that it gets frustrating having to repeat the same stuff over and over...and here is a perfect example. This member could spend awhile acquainting themselves with the subject matter, but instead wades into a debate on subject matter they are demonstrably ignorant on. It would likely have saved the thousandth time on ATS in the past week that its been pointed out that citizens do not have fully auto NOR military styled weapons. We get civilian weapons with scary looking plastic pieces attached to it so it looks like a military weapon.

How should Americans receive such advice and input?

I replied with researched knowlegde to show that citizens can own fully automatic weapons. I was just demonstrating I was in fact researched.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker
a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't think that means that at all. Clearly Militia and the bear arms parts are separate but both not to be infringed. Even there, they clarify a difference. So i don't believe they expected the everyday citizens to be allowed to have atomic bombs like the military. As you propose. Bombs are classed as "Arms" these days. Or do you draw a line at guns?


More uninformed hyperbole I see?

A firearm, as defined in 1789 is as such:

To be "armed" or to "arm is defined in 1789 as such:


Source: 1789 Dictionary
Your hyperbolic reference to atomic/nuclear weapons is merely your feeble attempt to cloud the discussion with non-facts. All the answers you seek are here in these ATS threads, multiple times.

I suggest you get educated and read more threads (i.e. lurk) here before spouting off falsehoods and uninformed opinions.


edit on 3/26/2018 by Krakatoa because: Updated link to full copy, at an even closer date to the writing of the Constitution



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: slipdigskywalker

Perhaps.

But what does your statement, then, have to do with this discussion? Is there an issue with fully automatic weapons being used in any sort of crime in the US in the last decade? The last i recall was those morons in LA in body armor back in the 90's.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker
Gday long time lurker. I joned to ask the Americans where in the Amendments it says "Bear Arms" Means the right to military style semi autos and Automatics?

Also why would taking the more deadly weapons out of the hands of everyday citizens be against the amendments if you were still allowed ownership of a bolt loaded style weapon?

Why don't you just control your guns better with more restriction or harder and more education about responsible gun ownership?


I have shown your amendant shows a clear distinction between militia and civilians. So I still don't see where it specifies what type of arms you can bear? And therefore open to interpretation.

My 2nd and 3rd questions I feel have been overlooked?



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Are you really going to say an AR with a modified trigger or bumpstop isnt Automatic through Definition?



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker
Gday long time lurker. I joned to ask the Americans where in the Amendments it says "Bear Arms" Means the right to military style semi autos and Automatics?

Also why would taking the more deadly weapons out of the hands of everyday citizens be against the amendments if you were still allowed ownership of a bolt loaded style weapon?

Why don't you just control your guns better with more restriction or harder and more education about responsible gun ownership?


I have shown your amendant shows a clear distinction between militia and civilians. So I still don't see where it specifies what type of arms you can bear? And therefore open to interpretation.

My 2nd and 3rd questions I feel have been overlooked?


And I answered you. Right next to the place in the first amendment that states freedom of speech is for the printing press. The use of "arms" and it's related "to Arm" have been defined for you.

In addition, here is a bonus offering. The term "to keep" applies to the citizens, and is defined in 1789 as:


Which if you read closely, actually states ""to have in the house".



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Are you really going to say an AR with a modified trigger or bumpstop isnt Automatic through Definition?


Modifying a trigger to make it transform a semi-auto firearm to function as a full-auto was illegal already.

A bumpstock was declared, by the U.S. ATF to be compliant with all laws during the Obama administration (when they were invented and began being sold).



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

My pleasure.

Even the UK has a gun problem. Well, for them anyway, and guess what...it is fueled by gangs and drugs.

8 gun deaths in the last week. So even though it's on a miniscule scale, the bad guys will still get weapons.

www.london.gov.uk...

Ms. May's cutting of the police force is just asking for these gangs to up their game and bring in more guns. This is a pretty pathetic attempt by the UK to emulate the US. Best to leave the shootin n murderin to us.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker
Gday long time lurker. I joned to ask the Americans where in the Amendments it says "Bear Arms" Means the right to military style semi autos and Automatics?

Also why would taking the more deadly weapons out of the hands of everyday citizens be against the amendments if you were still allowed ownership of a bolt loaded style weapon?

Why don't you just control your guns better with more restriction or harder and more education about responsible gun ownership?


I have shown your amendant shows a clear distinction between militia and civilians. So I still don't see where it specifies what type of arms you can bear? And therefore open to interpretation.

My 2nd and 3rd questions I feel have been overlooked?


Oh, here is another bonus, before you ignorantly ask about the term "bear" in reference to arms, as defined in 1789:


In other words, to carry a firearm for defense and to be able to keep it at home, shall not be infringed.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

en.wikipedia.org... nited_States

I was thinking more about statements or rulings like this. It defines or gives some definition to the types of guns your allowed.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker
a reply to: Krakatoa

U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

en.wikipedia.org... nited_States

I was thinking more about statements or rulings like this. It defines or gives some definition to the types of guns your allowed.


There are none, because there is no Constitutional allowance for types of arms. Not should there be IMO. Arms are accepted as being firearms.....period. There is no distinction as to the type, make, or model. Nor should there be, IMO.




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join