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.

 

STOP with the COMMON SENSE gun control pleas – just STOP! - falling on deaf ears

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You said one thing that would violate the 2nd amendment:


We need to amend the 2nd so that it applies better to the modern world.


I sincerely hope you reconsider that statement.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   
The hallmark of humanity is thr projectile. We had thr sight and dextrity to throw things accurately. Then developed the brain that made it more efficient.

This is humanity. The ever increasingly effective projectile. Its part and parcel to what being human is. The rock....sling.....spear....atlatl....bow....etc....

To disarm a human is every bit as tyrannical as declawing a cat.

And what right does anyone else have to decide how i choose to protect myself? Will we also remove front claws on all cats to protect birds, but leave a couple on the back so it can defend itself?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

Amending any part of the Constitution does not violate the Constitution... that's by definition. Literally.

As to what kind of change would I support? Something along the lines of:

"No law or regulation shall be made in any state or territory of the United States of America or of any state therein, which restricts private ownership, ability to carry openly or concealed, or reasonable use of any weapon of any kind whatsoever, except those weapons which fall under one or more of the following classifications:

Weapons which are capable of detonating in excess of ___ megatons of TNT, weapons which are capable of discharging ammunition in a fully automatic fashion without requiring additional action by the user, and weapons which have a normal capability, when used as intended, of severely injuring more than ten (10) people with one action or detonation.
"

That's a compromise... I'll give up the right to own nukes or RPGs in exchange for clearer language ensuring that no government entity can ever restrict my right to own, carry, or use a firearm for lawful purposes.

Anything more intrusive is a definite no for me.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Telling people to stop expressing their opinions, whether you agree with them or not, is stupid.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Not often we are on the same page.



we need public discourse no matter which way it flows or we are done as a society.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: toms54

Amending any part of the Constitution does not violate the Constitution... that's by definition. Literally


It would violate the integrity of the 2nd amendment as it now stands.

I respect your opinion but I do not agree. We have spent centuries interpreting the amendments, now we revise them and start over again? How often should we replace these amendments to keep them "current" with the times? How do we decide when they get outmoded? Someone always has a complaint about everything. Do you believe the end result will look anything like the original after a few revisions or will it be completely unrecognizable?

Yes it is possible but how often do we want to mess with the constitution? I don't expect to change your mind. I just hope that you are the only one that thinks this way.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


umm actually we are restricted from certain weapons as militia. anything not man portable or in artillery if i remember.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54


How is your situation any different than anyone else. I'm not just talking about gun purchase - any right.

I think the original question was whether I considered having to go to court to regain a right that was taken away from me just an inconvenience.

If I were actually stripped of one of my civil rights, and the basis of the government's actions was such that I would have to go to trial to regain that right, then the answer is no. That would be a lot more serious than an inconvenience.

However, if my ability to exercise one of my civil rights is temporarily blocked, but that restriction can be appealed in a timely and efficient manner (cheap$) , then that is an inconvenience.

So, I guess there's an "annoyance range" of sorts that is directly proportional to the strength of the evidence that exists to suspend that right. For instance, on the low end, there may be some information mismatch in the database, and the applicant has to wait an extra day to get authorized. On the high end, a convicted felon may have to appear before multiple judges in an attempt to regain their 2nd Amendment rights.



Violent mentally ill are already restricted.

1. What is the definition of violently mentally ill?
2. Who makes this determination of who is violently mentally ill?
3. When is this determination made? Before or after the firearm purchase?
4. If this determination is made after the weapon has been purchased, does the state have the right to confiscate it?

I think mental illness is one of the biggest issues facing our modern society. I have no concrete statistics at hand, however it appears to me that various types of mental disorders are being diagnosed far more often than in the past. So, I believe that this is a factor that has to be more widely examined in the context of firearm purchases.

-dex



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Those promoting gun ownership would be wise to come to the table for some common sense gun ownership discussions. If you don't, you can only blame yourselves for what happens.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix


1. Stalin and henchmen used Soviet mental health system to punish political opponents

This is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the mental healthcare field. It could be open to manipulation because most of the diagnoses are based on clinical examinations. I appreciate that the field of psychology has attempted to classify and categorize and define a broad set of behaviors and how a certain intersection of those behaviors constitute a diagnosis. The fact of the matter is that every individual is unique, and their diagnoses are still largely based on the subjective views of the practitioner.



2. We were told Patriot act was unconstitutional but temporary - we now live in virtual surveillance state/police state.

Unfortunately 911 changed everything. The reality is we're part of a real live Matrix. Through the use of various technologies, nearly our every action can either be tracked directly, or inferred from past behavior. We constantly leak enough information for a psychological profile to be constructed that will even predict our future behaviors. The more technology we use, the more information we leak, the more refined the psychological profile becomes.



3. What prevents an absolute liberal despot from using such a system to rid us of the second amendment problem unless privileged and politically correct?

For now there is one firewall to prevent either the legislative or executive branches of the government from divesting the American public of its 2nd Amendment rights. That is the Supreme Court. It's likely that the SCOTUS will remain conservative leaning and supportive of gun rights for at least the next generation.

-dex



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: DexterRiley

These are great proposals! Well said!


Thanks. My hope was to start a genuine conversation about how to address our "gun crime" issue. It's clear to me that even those who are strong gun rights supporters are open to talking about the issue. We just have to start by defining what we all see as the problem to be addressed.

Then, once we come down off our respective Liberal side and Conservative side pedestals and start to actually respect and listen to one another, we find that we have more in common than the-powers-that-be would have us believe.

-dex



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Those promoting gun ownership would be wise to come to the table for some common sense gun ownership discussions. If you don't, you can only blame yourselves for what happens.


How many trips to that table need to be made?!?




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54


I don't know which state she is referring to but it might be Virginia. They did this exact same thing when I was living in Richmond. It was implemented though the use of task forces composed of state and federal law enforcement. Basically was a state initiative combined with the total elimination of parole in the state.

It was very successful in reducing the crime rate overall but increased prison populations. I don't think it had any impact upon legal gun ownership. It was mostly about getting repeat felons off the street. Unfortunately was not copied by many states.


That's interesting. Was this an effort specifically aimed at reducing illegal firearms in the community? For instance, did these task forces go after violent gangs, confiscate their weapons, and charge the members with gun possession crimes?

I was thinking that she was referring to the various Attorneys General being forced to charge the perpetrators with not only their primary crime, but also with any extenuating circumstances that exist because the crime was committed when that person was in possession of a firearm.

However, a broad spectrum approach that attacks the problem from both angles may be preferred.

-dex



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Annoyance is the feeling I get reading your posts. Regaining a civil right. What exactly do you consider 'appealed in a timely and efficient manner" to mean? A letter to the governor? A two year bureaucratic process? Please tell us.

As far as "Violent mentally ill are already restricted." goes, I don't know the answer to your demands. I only know the background check law requires states to report involuntary commitments for evaluation in determining a person's fitness. There is already a mental health component to the law. The criminally insane are restricted. Why don't you Google it if it is so critical for you to know the exact terms? You can post it here.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes. But remember, it's for the children.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes. But remember, it's for the children.


I enjoyed helping my child sight in his new AR-15. PIcked up a Leupold scope, finally got the rings in, and took it out for 50 rounds of prelim work on getting it zero'd. He's 20.

What country kids need vs what city kids need...lotta difference there.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

"That's interesting. Was this an effort specifically aimed at reducing illegal firearms in the community? For instance, did these task forces go after violent gangs, confiscate their weapons, and charge the members with gun possession crimes?

I was thinking that she was referring to the various Attorneys General being forced to charge the perpetrators with not only their primary crime, but also with any extenuating circumstances that exist because the crime was committed when that person was in possession of a firearm.'

Yes. These task forces did go after violent gangs, confiscate their weapons, and charge the members with gun possession crimes. It was a state initiative but I believe a federal law - 5 years for a firearm in a felony.

As I said the focus was to get repeat felons off the street. Not restrict gun ownership. If the criminals are locked up, they aren't committing crimes. That is why they also abolished parole. Close the "revolving door."
edit on 4-6-2018 by toms54 because: puunctuation and grammer



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes. But remember, it's for the children.


I enjoyed helping my child sight in his new AR-15. PIcked up a Leupold scope, finally got the rings in, and took it out for 50 rounds of prelim work on getting it zero'd. He's 20.

What country kids need vs what city kids need...lotta difference there.


Yea, common sense.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



If you will listen to the concerns being voiced, you will discover that most 2nd amendment advocates are reasonable people. It's just that people like earlier in this thread, people who openly demand that guns are "not necessary" and therefore regulatable, keep pushing an agenda that causes us to balk as well. If I'm negotiating to buy a car that is priced $10,000 and my starting offer is ten cents if you have it washed and haul it to my house, there's not going to be a deal there.

That's a pretty good analogy. You make a good point about starting negotiation from a reasonable position. I become somewhat confrontational myself when someone tells me what I need or not need. That calls for a level of judgement on the part of the accuser that is not theirs to wield.



If the goal is to prevent school shootings,

So it would be completely legal and proper to restrict a child from bringing a firearm to school... any firearm. In light of the recent shootings, I see nothing improper about metal detectors at entry points for students.

Under the circumstances, I see nothing violating that right if teachers were required to either pass a Federally-supervised firearm safety course

I see no problem with limiting visitors to a specified number and restricting their access to areas which are supervised by armed security. I see a lot right with hiring a few armed security guards to protect the children... but I'm not talking about scared stuffed shirts like we saw in Parkland Florida.

Simple solution, and we have eliminated almost every shooting in recent months without violating any amendment, or passing more legislation (other than removing the laws that would forbid such a plan of action).

Oh my God!

Thinking about that literally turns my stomach...

Unfortunately that is probably the most pragmatic approach to fixing the school shooting problem. We have to turn our schools into armed fortresses. Even if we are able to reduce gun violence and start keeping firearms out of the hands of potential perpetrators, this is the only way to insure the safety of our children in the short term and long term. It's a pity that even something like this is not infallible against a determined assailant.



I also think education is our best long-term solution. I'd love to see a firearms safety course required in high school.
When I think about our culture, it makes me wonder why this wouldn't already be done. Much of what the public knows about firearms is from watching TV. It strikes me as sensible that students should learn about something so important to our unique way of life in this country.

I also like an idea that was mentioned earlier by one contributor. Allowing younger teens and possibly older pre-teens to purchase small caliber firearms in their own names. When combined with parental approval, some required education, and possibly testing, this could help these youngsters to gain a real appreciation for the power of a gun. As well help instill in them a sense of responsibility for something with such power. It would take some thinking about the best way to implement this though.

Then there's also this issue with parental buy-in. There are going to be some parents who will either be afraid that their children will get hurt, or simply recoil from the idea that their children are exposed to guns of any type because of their own biases.

Thanks


-dex



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
If common sense gun laws actually had any common sense in them people might listen.

I am sick of hearing about "assault style" rifles. There is no such thing. Style is a reference to appearance, not function. Banning something based on its appearance but not its function is about as stupid as it gets. But the left have to make things sound much worse than they actually are to get people who have a hard time thinking for themselves to agree with them.

They know they can't call them assault rifles any more. We have successfully beat that drum enough to resonate with just about everyone. But the left cant give up their primary tactic so they find other ways to make the rifles sound as dangerous as possible. Now they call them "assault style high capacity high velocity weapons of war". Geez, can you squeeze a few more adjectives in there? Analyze that description and you get to the truth.

Style: Style refers to appearance only. Take the wood parts off your grandfather's old rifle and replace them with new fancy plastic parts and your grandfather is now part of the problem with his assault style rifle.

High capacity: Capacity is not set. You can buy any capacity magazine you want. What qualifies as "high"?

High velocity: Show me a bullet that is not high velocity. What exactly qualifies as "high"?

Weapon of war: The AR15, the most common target of the anti-gun groups, is not a weapon of war. Not one single army on Earth uses the AR15 as its weapon of choice. The reason is simple. If they did, they would get destroyed by a real army using real military grade weapons of war.

Once you remove the buzz words you see that there is nothing left to the liberal argument but gibberish and deception.

We have had enough lies. We need a real solution to a real problem. We do not need more whining and yapping from a bunch of liberal lap dogs who either have no idea what they are talking about or are just going to lie until they get what they want.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join