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.

 

NRA not charitable organization but a terrorist organization

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I didn't say either should be illegal. What I said is that controlling ordinance would be a way to negate potential risks from deranged madmen. Not to mention cost restriction. A box of 20 rounds for my .223 aren't really all that cheap. I can imagine that the cost for shells to equip my M-1 Abrams wouldn't be much cheaper.

"Clips" are not used. While everyone knows what you refer to...its a "magazine". Knowing the vernacular will help you present a better argument.

The problem here is that our government has the means to obliterate us. And they have begun to blatantly abuse their power. Government trust is at an all time low right now. Obviously a big focus for 2A champions is going to be on this lopsided armament, as the founders were clear about its purpose: a wedge against governmental tyranny.




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati
Good gawd, just your post alone is enough to set the snowflakes into a reeeeeeegasm.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I don't think that regulating which members of the population can arm themselves with which type of weaponry/arms is "infringement on the right to bare arms.

And, I don't see those two clauses, separated by a comma, not a period, as separate but equal statements. I see them as codependent and contingent on each other. The Founding Fathers weren't illiterate or grammar ignorant.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I believe every citizen that is old enough to vote and complete a comprehensive course on firearms should be able to own and carry one or more as they desire. Other than that, I don't see a need for gun regulation. We already have laws in this country against murder and violence, whatever the weapon may be.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Great, if you want to infringe on our gun rights the 1st legal step is to amend the U.S. constitution. Anything else is an act of treason, especially if done by a politician. Any gun law which infringes on one's 2nd amendment right is null/void in accordance with the 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution. One is allowed to carry a firearm in any public place in the U.S., including: schools, public ports/airports, prisons, court houses/government buildings, prisons, post offices & any private building whose occupants receive public funding. Any restrictions regarding guns in these places are in direct violation of the 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution. Fyi, commas mean "and". This is basic grammer. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (and) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If one is unsure regarding the meaning behind what's in the U.S. constitution I suggest you read the Federalist papers written by our founding fathers. This will help explain to you the importance of the the constitution, including the 1st & 2nd amendments, due-process, the electoral college, etc., so you can learn something and have a better understanding of how the U.S. government is supposed to work.
edit on 27-3-2019 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Not around Camden. The rural areas are alright, reminds me of the rural areas of Maryland. But I still wouldn’t live in either state. I am considering Eastern Tennessee, but will probably stay in my little area of Ohio a bit longer.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Klassified

California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin do not have a specific guarantee to arms in their constitutions. The other 39 do.

Going to take more than just amending the Second, because even though those 11 states do not guarantee a right to arms, those other 39 states allow them to own with this despite the Second Amendment and their own State Constitution. To deny ownership due to their residency would a violation of civil rights.


Article 4, Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Understood and agreed, but they think if they can just get that dreaded second amendment out of the way, it will open up a whole new world for them.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: dfnj2015
The problem here is that our government has the means to obliterate us. And they have begun to blatantly abuse their power. Government trust is at an all time low right now. Obviously a big focus for 2A champions is going to be on this lopsided armament, as the founders were clear about its purpose: a wedge against governmental tyranny.


I think gun rights are pretty irrelevant at this point in terms of protecting us from our government. The government has way bigger guns, tanks, and fighter jets. And probably vaporizing lasers from space. And soon killer spider drones to go along with the airborne drones. And probably bio-weapons with unimaginable honorifics.

Guns are a little like coin collecting at this point.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


Should there be a legal limit on any type of firepower and why? Should someone be able to sell stinger missiles on the side of the road near Newark Airport in New Jersey?


There are limits and you cannot buy a stinger.

I think you're alluding to firepower as caliber or amount of gunpowder. That is a context argument. For instance, a rifle is more effective at long range, however a pistol can be more effective at close range. Depending how you frame the argument, one has more firepower than the other even though both can be more effective dependent on context.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Funny while the Left/Liberals go after a group that promotes responsible gun ownership and training, they rally around defending Planned Parenthood as a stellar charitable organization , the statistics show they are more responsible for dispatching lives than Guns are Statiistics




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I still like the idea of quartering troops in the homes of those trying to overturn the Second. By violating their rights they would gain new understanding of other rights and why their protection is needed.

Of course rather than regular Army, I would force a quartering of militia troops like Oathkeepers or 3%’ers. But I am cruel like that.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

so, lets just make it even easier, and take all the variably defined statements away.

The Bill of rights, are granted by "God" they are simply enumerated by the document in the most easily understood terms of the day.

The real premise is the right to bear arms. In particular "arms" meaning ALL possible implements of defense.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: dfnj2015
The problem here is that our government has the means to obliterate us. And they have begun to blatantly abuse their power. Government trust is at an all time low right now. Obviously a big focus for 2A champions is going to be on this lopsided armament, as the founders were clear about its purpose: a wedge against governmental tyranny.


I think gun rights are pretty irrelevant at this point in terms of protecting us from our government. The government has way bigger guns, tanks, and fighter jets. And probably vaporizing lasers from space. And soon killer spider drones to go along with the airborne drones. And probably bio-weapons with unimaginable honorifics.

Guns are a little like coin collecting at this point.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of a man/woman fighting for their survival. History is replete with examples.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
The worst thing this country did was ban Dueling, imo, it's makes folks polite.


So you are for dueling rights?

btw, are you man or woman? Is your salacious avatar indicative of your gender or are you a cross dresser avatar user?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Sookiechacha

so, lets just make it even easier, and take all the variably defined statements away.

The Bill of rights, are granted by "God" they are simply enumerated by the document in the most easily understood terms of the day.

The real premise is the right to bear arms. In particular "arms" meaning ALL possible implements of defense.


I like it when people have the balls to say "no regulation" at all.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




I don't think that regulating which members of the population can arm themselves with which type of weaponry/arms is "infringement on the right to bare arms.


It is.

It's also called institutionalised discrimination treating some people 'more' equal than others.

In direct contrast of what the phrase all men are created equal is suppose to mean.


edit on 27-3-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

The Founders were not solely intending the 2nd Amendment to protect against government. The 2nd Amendment was also for people protecting themselves against other people. Living out on the remote prairie in 1850 (or today for that matter), people could do you and your family harm. You couldn't call the police. You had to have a way to protect yourself and family from other citizens.

Also, in the event of a zombie apocalypse and the break down of government, you will need firearms to survive. Please see my reference: The Walking Dead, Seasons 1-10. LOL!



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Gun control in a nutshell is legalized bigotry supported by left wing supremacists.




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Here ya go OP, you should buy a machine gun or two.

They're a lot of fun! And legal to own too!

machineguncentral.com...

Be sure to stock up on lots of high capacity clipazines, youll need em
edit on 3 27 2019 by caterpillage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

There's no way I'd pay $20 grand to $30 grand for a 'machine gun'.

People should just buy a drop in auto sear and use whatever they eff they want.






new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join