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.
All those guns and not many law abiding citizens use them to kill innocent people. The people who use guns to rob others do not usually get those guns legally. We do need a little regulations to keep bad or mentally unstable people from getting guns, but banning guns is not the solution. If criminals know that people in their houses are defenseless, crime would go up. Many people would be defenseless against those who want to hurt them, many more thefts, rapes, and murders would happen. Even criminals know that it is not wise to break into a house if the people could have a gun. We would have to boost the amount of cops by five fold, and even then it might take them too long to get to a house. I think that these crazies want us disarmed to reduce the population of the country.
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
originally posted by: rickymouse
When a politician is sworn into office, they are supposed to be representing everyone in their district, not just the ones that voted them based on party lines. Yes, they can lean a little to that side, but they cannot abandon the concerns of those of the other political party completely, that is why we have policies and laws to protect everyone. The Liberals are not following the rules set forth by our forefathers that were put in place to protect all citizens of this country, even those of the other party.
True , and this is Why All Citizens of this Country Defend Each Others Constitutional Rights Regardless of Political Leanings .......
Allow the removal of firearms from persons who pose a substantial risk to themselves or others — $50,000
Prohibit the sale, possession, and transport of assault firearms, trigger activators, and silencers –$50,000
Increase the penalty for allowing a child to access unsecured firearms –$50,000
Prohibit possession of firearms for persons subject to final orders of protection –$50,000
Require background checks for all firearm sales –$50,000
Of note is that § 30-19.1:4 addresses the budget “Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.”
originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl
"What, pray tell, makes you think the 2nd Amendment only contemplates 'hunting rifles and hand guns'?"
Possibly the possibility that the writers of the second amendment could only contemplate flintlocks, not hand held weapons of mass destruction that in the hands of one person could kill a hundred people inside of a minute.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy
Like I already pointed out, ain't no one running around killing a bunch of people with machine guns!! So, ya, seems like we can pretty much keep some weapons out of the hands of criminals...
And, I dont care what kind of penalty you slap onto those who are going around mass shooting a bunch of people! Most of them arent planning on sticking around long enough to face any consequences anyways..
I see people who want to infringe on the 2nd Amendment as no better than those who would infringe upon any other Right.
Sorry.
To me, any one who deliberately wants to infringe upon rights is fascist.
originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl
I used to believe this idea that our right to bear arms is constitutionally protected so as to protect us from an overly zealous government. As well I still believe that that was valid, then and for a long while since the framing. However now I find it a futile exercise to believe that we can protect ourselves from the modern weaponry that has been developed.
The only way that could happen would be the big IF that you describe above, that citizens could own and operate their own tanks and RPGs and what ever else they deemed necessary to defending themselves from that government. Fighter jets? Military helicopters? Come on now, where do we draw the line or do we even bother.
And sure, I"m no expert on the details of history but I can only imagine that had the framers truly had any inkling of the state of the art weaponry two hundred years after their time that defenders of the second amendment would demand for their own use, tanks and stuff as you have just done, they would have thrown up their hands in futility for surely that kind of a nation is not what they wanted to see at all.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Lumenari
Okay, so explain to me, why wasn't it unconstitutional for the govt to slap some restrictions on machine guns back when the mobs were having open warfare with each other with them but now it seems that any type of restriction is unconstitutional?
To me, there is two reasons our founders would feel the people had an unquestionable right to bear arms. One is that they were necessary to provide food.. to me, this argument would eliminate any possibility for the govt to be able to issue a total ban on all guns. If all else fails, we should always be able to hunt for our food.
The other would be self defense... from wild animals and from criminals.
The third reason I hear often is the tyrannical govt, foreign invasion bit, which might have been something that would be relevant in the founders time but in this time is really quite laughable. Unless, of course you desire to throw in the fighter jets, missile launchers, and all those neat toys most modern armies are equipped with.
So, let's say I agree with the first two arguments. I dont really see the need for bump stocks, silencers, or guns that let you discharge that high of a number of rounds in such a short amount of time.
What planet are you on?