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.

 

Beto O’Rourke: Ban AR-15 Sales in America

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off. So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.


False equivalence fallacy.


I get it, that's an exaggeration.

But, honestly, where should the line be drawn with what firearms are legal to own and which aren't? No meme, no "ask your state", I want to know your actual opinion. Is there a firearm that should be illegal for citizens to own? And if so, how does one determine what should and shouldn't be legal?




posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

There is no line.

The reasoning behind the second as a last ditch defence against a totalitarian state.

When speech fails.

When court fails.

There's no problem the proper amount of lead flying can't solve.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



I'm a gun lover, that is 100% pro-regulation of firearms.




By making it harder for a burglar to steal your firearms and then use them in a crime.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Stealing is a crime.

Your 'argument' is still invalid.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   


If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.

What was the purpose for the founders to put the 2nd in?
It had a purpose, and a need. Those have not gone away.




"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson




"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason





"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster





"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison


I would submit they fully intended us to be capable of defending ourselves.
From a tyrannical government if needed.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?


What? Stingers and nuclear weapons? You forgot laser rays and pulse guns that make your organs explode when it hits you.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

a felon can't steal your guns if they are already confiscated by the government.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator

There is no line.

The reasoning behind the second as a last ditch defence against a totalitarian state.

When speech fails.

When court fails.

There's no problem the proper amount of lead flying can't solve.



So what you're saying is, given that they have the means to buy it, a citizen should be legally allowed to own ANY firearm they want to own?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage


Do you use that same logic when it comes to border security?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96



On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off. So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.


False equivalence fallacy.


I get it, that's an exaggeration.

But, honestly, where should the line be drawn with what firearms are legal to own and which aren't? No meme, no "ask your state", I want to know your actual opinion. Is there a firearm that should be illegal for citizens to own? And if so, how does one determine what should and shouldn't be legal?


I don't think a legal line should be drawn with what firearms are legal to own because such laws are a limitation of personal freedoms.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody



If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.

What was the purpose for the founders to put the 2nd in?
It had a purpose, and a need. Those have not gone away.




"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson




"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason





"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster





"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison


I would submit they fully intended us to be capable of defending ourselves.
From a tyrannical government if needed.


I fully agree that citizens should be allowed to own firearms. The fact that you pulled one sentence out of such a long post is interesting, and seems like you're choosing to ignore a lot of what I said.

What I was saying is, there really isn't a true reason/purpose/need to own that specific model of gun. Not guns in general. I own 7.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Pretty much.

LAW already address when people do bad snip to each other.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?


What? Stingers and nuclear weapons? You forgot laser rays and pulse guns that make your organs explode when it hits you.


It's a bit hyperbolic, but it's a good question: Where is the line drawn with what's legal vs. illegal? Do you think there should be a line, or should all firearms be legal for citizens to own?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96



On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off. So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.


False equivalence fallacy.


I get it, that's an exaggeration.

But, honestly, where should the line be drawn with what firearms are legal to own and which aren't? No meme, no "ask your state", I want to know your actual opinion. Is there a firearm that should be illegal for citizens to own? And if so, how does one determine what should and shouldn't be legal?


I don't think a legal line should be drawn with what firearms are legal to own because such laws are a limitation of personal freedoms.


So my neighbor should be able to buy an F-16, and a full range of active missiles to accompany it, as long as he can afford it?

That seems...unsafe.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




What was the purpose for the founders to put the 2nd in? It had a purpose, and a need. Those have not gone away.


It was a swiss army knife or todays multi tool.

A cure all for whatever happens.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Your neighbor ain't rich enough to have either, or the real estate to play with one.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96



On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off. So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.


False equivalence fallacy.


I get it, that's an exaggeration.

But, honestly, where should the line be drawn with what firearms are legal to own and which aren't? No meme, no "ask your state", I want to know your actual opinion. Is there a firearm that should be illegal for citizens to own? And if so, how does one determine what should and shouldn't be legal?


I don't think a legal line should be drawn with what firearms are legal to own because such laws are a limitation of personal freedoms.


So my neighbor should be able to buy an F-16, and a full range of active missiles to accompany it, as long as he can afford it?

That seems...unsafe.


All liberty is unsafe. Padded rooms and jail cells are safe.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I have a sea so I don't need a wall.

Better training, better understanding and better control of owned firearms is a must in my opinion. Many US shooting sprees by children have happened because said children have access to there parents firearms, people being shot because a firearm was left around the house or the car.

A lot of the arguments used are "criminals don't follow the law" but where did that criminal get a firearm in the first place, a firearm owner leaves his weapon around the house, it's burgled and the firearm is stolen.

The golden state killer did just this.
edit on 18-3-2019 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator

Your neighbor ain't rich enough to have either, or the real estate to play with one.


Well some neighbors can afford them.

militarymachine.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Not really.
You asked for the purpose or need and I showed you the founders purpose and need.
That hasn't changed.
People were murdered with guns in the founders time, and they did not take every ones guns, did they?




Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation
James Madison

Even back in the day they KNEW this was an advantage the people would ultimately have over the government, and would keep the government in check.
There are lots of uses for the AR-15: hunting, target practice(being part of a well regulated militia), competitive sport shooting. The founders knew of the need and included the 2nd.
At the time when the second was written the people could keep the same weapons as any soldier.
Why would time change that?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join