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.

 

Looks like Cruz just got a 9 point lead as opponent says ARs are bad

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
www.dallasnews.com...



Incumbent Republican Ted Cruz has opened a 9-point lead in his high-profile U.S. Senate race against Democrat Beto O'Rourke, according to a poll released Tuesday.




A Democrat hasn't won a Texas statewide race since 1994, when George W. Bush won the race for governor and ushered in an era of statewide Republican dominance.




posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   


I wonder if those who wrote the constitution had automatic weapons in mind when they drafted that amendment.



Funny statement... Here's why...

The framers of the Constitution certainly knew what weapons of war were; They had cannons, bored and smooth bored muskets, mortars (early artillery), explosives, bombs, etc. etc. etc... And yet they did not exclude those from the second amendment...




"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."


So if according to their mindset, there was no exclusion to the mortar, the cannon etc. what makes one think they would exclude an automatic rifle ?

Of course, we'll ignore the fact an AR-15 is NOT an automatic weapon, for the sake of argument.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky




Sounds like you should go work on Cruz's opponent's democratic campaign.

No thanks.


a reply to: Bluntone22



Civilians hands are exactly where they belong.
And an ar is not a weapon of war.
Bayonets are though.

I wonder if those who wrote the constitution had automatic weapons in mind when they drafted that amendment.
Bayonets are a weapon of last resort.

a reply to: ketsuko



You've never done much study on feral hogs have you? They're destructive and dangerous and an AR is one of the best weapons to hunt them with, and they *need* to be hunted.

I don't doubt they need to be hunted but if you need an AR to do it it makes me wonder how your forbears managed with just riffles.
Better hunters I guess.


The founders meant for the population to be just as well armed for they were who made up the Militia and could be called to duty as the nation needed them... As more and more modern weapons were introduced along with full automatic weapons some restrictions were placed on who could own much less afford to own a full automatic (look at the national firearms act of 1934) but as usual if you have the money and can now pass a back ground check you can buy a full auto .50 cal. At over $5 dollars a round (sold in bulk) you can burn up allot of ammo and money in just about one minute. The .50 is a weapon of war yet guess what you can still own one but they are to heavy to lug around on an all night hunt.

I hunted pigs with an AR equipped with a night scope.. I usually carried 4 30 round magazines simply because on occasion 2 magazines were not deemed sufficient in a highly pig populated area.. Since the ammo was secure in the magazines there was no rattle or fumbling around for you next shell.....when needed you could be back shooting in a matter of a couple of seconds. I also carries a 1911 .45 just in case the AR jammed and I was being charged by a wild boar. Never happened but it was there just in case.

The best pig eradicator I have ever seen was a female mountain lion who ran all the pigs out of our area in just one year. She was a well mannered mountain lion as she never attacked any live stock that I was aware of; why would she when there were so many pigs I suppose ?
youtu.be...



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog




Actually they are armed with teeth (tusks) that can be as dangerous as any "weapon of war"

I know , we have them over here but when they're hunted our hunters use standard riffles , more skillful hunters here I guess.



An AR , which is sold to citizens , is not a "weapon of war"
Of course I knew you cannot understand...

I'm not a gun obsessed American so perhaps I don't.



One post stated you would fit in well with the Dem candidate in Texas I say nay You would fit in perfectly in Cali

Even though I have no real interest in your broken political system , more interesting things happening here.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex
This weapons of war you speak of is responsible for less loss of life than people's own hands and feet every year. So few times is a rifle of any type used to murder in this country. How come anti-americans never discuss that?? Why do you want slavery And despotism to rule the world??



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

First of all, the AR is not an automatic rifle.

And second, please point out where the word "hunting" appears in the constitution.

The word militia does appear though.

"mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/Submit
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service."

Opposition to a regular army.....hmm

Try that with a musket.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




How come anti-americans never discuss that??

WAIT ! , WHAT ?
Questioning the sanity of people owning AR rifles makes me anti-American now ?
(at least I capitalised you country's name)




Why do you want slavery And despotism to rule the world??

Look around , they already do.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex




Even though I have no real interest in your broken political system , more interesting things happening here.

oh did you guys get another pm this week?

lol and our system is broken lololololol



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex
Your in shackles?? I'ma pretty sure I got plenty enough freedom to own firearms , go hunting, go to the beach, have fun at music concerts etc..

I guess if someone lives in a socialist anti liberty society it can certainly seem like slavery.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




oh did you guys get another pm this week?

No , same one we've had for the last 2 years.



lol and our system is broken lololololol

Glad it amuses you as much as it does me , enjoy the ride.
edit on 19-9-2018 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.


The second amendment did not apply to guns, until the 1990's ? Nonsense!




In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. …….. this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934


That's utter poppycock... As to what the framers thought of guns/fire-arms is easily found in their writings, letters, and personal reflections. Take Jefferson, there is no mistaking what he thought about guns.




"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." -Washington





"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Jefferson


Etc. etc. etc.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos
Your link isn't about the 2nd Amendment. Also, the founding fathers were just as much in disagreement about issues as we are. Don't pretend they all believed the same.

District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[2] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[3]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and the primary dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, are considered examples of the application of originalism in practice.[6]

edit on 19-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky




Sounds like you should go work on Cruz's opponent's democratic campaign.

No thanks.


a reply to: Bluntone22



Civilians hands are exactly where they belong.
And an ar is not a weapon of war.
Bayonets are though.

I wonder if those who wrote the constitution had automatic weapons in mind when they drafted that amendment.
Bayonets are a weapon of last resort.

a reply to: ketsuko



You've never done much study on feral hogs have you? They're destructive and dangerous and an AR is one of the best weapons to hunt them with, and they *need* to be hunted.

I don't doubt they need to be hunted but if you need an AR to do it it makes me wonder how your forbears managed with just riffles.
Better hunters I guess.


Its like a run down of all anti gun talking points, but with little fact or substance.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I didn't link anything... I posted a quote about a supreme court ruling that WAS over the second Amendment and well before the 1990's, and whether Congress had right to regulate a fire-arm. They ruled an exception to the Second Amendment, in that Congress could regulate this weapon because of this aspect.

Sorry, your wrong on that front.

The case you're linking does not say what you seem to think it says... Neither does it radify that the second amendment wasn't about guns... How does one come to that conclusion ?!? lol That ruling is about guns, and how the second amendment protects the ownership of Guns, even in D.C.

Still waiting for you to show me the second amendment isn't about guns...

edit on 19-9-2018 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2018 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.


This is the dumbest thing youve posted on this subject.

The 2A has protected firearms for its entire existence.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.


This is the dumbest thing youve posted on this subject.

The 2A has protected firearms for its entire existence.

Nope. As I just posted it wasn't until 2008 that this was the case.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.


This is the dumbest thing youve posted on this subject.

The 2A has protected firearms for its entire existence.

Nope. As I just posted it wasn't until 2008 that this was the case.




LOL no you didn't.... I don't think you even understand what you quoted.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




Your in shackles?? I'ma pretty sure I got plenty enough freedom to own firearms , go hunting, go to the beach, have fun at music concerts etc..

Shackles ?
I have the freedom to own firearms , go hunting and go to the beach .... your point is wide of the mark



I guess if someone lives in a socialist anti liberty society it can certainly seem like slavery.

I guess it can , although if you think the UK is a socialist anti liberty society you are very much mistaken , we have a Conservative government too.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   


that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.


That's what the case and ruling was about.....




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join