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.

 

WAR: Proposed Bill will deny U.S. citizens the right to own a gun

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Check your dictionary: Right and Privilege mean the same thing! WTF!

A privilege is a right. A right is a privilege. What happens here?




No they are not the same when it comes to the law.

Example. you do not have a right to drive, you are given a privilege to drive in the form of a drivers license. if you do not obey the law that privilege is taken away.




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
A new Bill has been introduced in congress to deny the sale of firearms to U.S. citizens that are on Homeland Securities 'Terrorist Watch List'.


There would be no greater violation of the constitution than this. Denying ownership to someone with a previous felony conviction is already borderline to being a violation. This would be an absolute violation.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I think a clearer definition would be that a drivers license is a privilege as you are required to earn it - pass a drivers test to obtain the privilege of driving.

Whereas, in America, it is your right to posses a firearm - you only need to be born a U.S citizen to own one. No earning required.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Hey if your acting suspisciously and arent likely to be a terrorist... theres nothing to worry about... i for one think you guys need the tighten your gun control laws... but hey... thats me and i dont live in the US so i wont be a victim of your notorious gun crimes...



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Rights and Privilege DO NOT mean the same thing and I do not care what Webster says. the deffinitions are as follows:

Right... Unalienable, can not be taken by some law or man, you always have your Rights. Rights are given by GOD and can NOT be taken by a man.

Privillege... Can be taken, usurperd, suspended. Privileges are given by man and can be taken by a man.

There is much information on this matter in American Law

look here for some law on Rights and Privileges



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Then how is owning a gun a right then? If it was a god given thing and untouchable by law then there would be no background checks before purchasing a gun. There would be no laws prohibiting criminals from purchasing guns.

Either your interpretation of right is overestimated or your laws are contravening your constitiution
Which is it?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Sounds like there's a few here who slept through history class, or you're just pretending to be one us.

Stupid, blind, brainwashed or what I don't know I just know there seems to be many of you around. Maybe it is time to cull the herd to get our species back on track.

I heard about what happened down under & I found this little bit while searching on the net.


From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks,

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender their 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. (That's $780.79 for every gun collected and destroyed. - RRP)

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." I suspect that you won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note, you Americans, before it's too late! From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia




[edit on 14-4-2005 by outsider]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a) I am impressed by the Australin post
b) I'm worried about the various "watch lists" defining what you can and what you cannot do in the US. To me this sounds like ex-judicial system not in line with the Constitution. If there are charges against the person, bring them forth and let the coutr of law decide. Don't put them on some list taking their rights away!



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Rights and Privilege DO NOT mean the same thing and I do not care what Webster says. the deffinitions are as follows:

Right... Unalienable, can not be taken by some law or man, you always have your Rights. Rights are given by GOD and can NOT be taken by a man.

Privillege... Can be taken, usurperd, suspended. Privileges are given by man and can be taken by a man.

There is much information on this matter in American Law

look here for some law on Rights and Privileges


Not according to my Oxford American Desk Dictionary. Both "right" and "privilege" are included in either meaning. Look it up.

From AskOxford:

privilege
 • noun 1 a special right, advantage, or immunity for a particular person or group. 2 an opportunity to do something regarded as a special honour: she had the privilege of giving the opening lecture. 3 the right to say or write something without the risk of punishment, especially in parliament.


Your right as a US citizen IS a privilege endowed and guaranteed by the US Constitution, not a privilege endowed naturally.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
The Constitution is the law of the land. And it states that the right shall not be infringed on. So any law that is passed that does not meet this test is unconstitutional. So until the time comes that a provision in the constitution allows for this right to be revoked it stands as law and there is nothing congress nor the president can do about it (without an amendment).



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Rights and Privilege DO NOT mean the same thing and I do not care what Webster says. the deffinitions are as follows:

Right... Unalienable, can not be taken by some law or man, you always have your Rights. Rights are given by GOD and can NOT be taken by a man.

Privillege... Can be taken, usurperd, suspended. Privileges are given by man and can be taken by a man.


Rights can be given by man and can be taken by man. Man has been known to be pretty disregardful or dismissive of anybody's rights for as long as we know human history.

How do I really know that God have given me rights? Am I still alive? Yes. Am I still breathing? Yes. Do I have rights? Only guaranteed and endowed by the US CONSTITUTION as long as I'm a US citizen and am entitled to bear firearms as I see fit.

Unless I disabuse my right to bear firearms by using it recklessly and bring harm/death to anybody as result, my right/privilege can be taken away by the police, tried and prosecuted in a court of law until proven otherwise. At this point, YOUR(or mine or anybody's) right/privilege to bear firearms is SUBJECTED to scrutiny and circumstance while under a constitutionally mandated protection by the US Constitution.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I would be all for this if the terriorist watch list " no fly " were accurate. They are flawed. People who haven't done anything but voice an unpopular opinion....granny and grandpa ACLU members.
This is clearly governments misuse of powers.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
This bill appears to be more an attack on the Bill of Rights than to defend this country against terrorism. If someone were a real terrorist, do you honestly think they would obey all of our laws and not illegally acquire a handgun with some illegitimate paperwork stolen with some identity theft? If a civil war were to actually start in the US, I can imagine one over people defending Our US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I believe our soldiers made a pledge to defend our country and this appears to be an attack on our Bill of Rights worse than any other I have heard of.

This bill sounds more like Nazi Germany than present day USA. Take away one of the big items in the Bill of Rights and you can take away the entire thing. Any one of us could be secretly put on a terrorist list if we just simply disagreed with those in power or any future bill for that matter. We the people do not control this secret list.


One disclaimer: I believe the Bill of Rights should be honored for all Americans. If the government wants to take away guns from foreigners living here in the US because of suspicious or possibly terrorist activity, I could live with that.


[edit on 14-4-2005 by orionthehunter]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by orionthehunter]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
Guns are for corwards. The White man took gunpowder from the Chinese and created the most ludicrously coward personal weapon of history. Point and shoot, and kill. If you think about it, Europeans would have never invaded America without this stupid weapon, Cortez would have had his ass kicked by the Aztecs and the British would have never invaded anything at all!

Guns are pure EVIL.


Hmmmm. Say that again as two gun-toting rapists break thru your daughter's bedroom window......



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
The major problem with this is, no one is actually a terrorist until they commit an act of terror. Until then, shouldn't they be considered innocent and have the right to bear arms?



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moe Foe
The major problem with this is, no one is actually a terrorist until they commit an act of terror. Until then, shouldn't they be considered innocent and have the right to bear arms?


Yes, as I and several others have been saying in the past 4 pages...

I think, though, that you may mean "until they commit an act of terrorism", whatever the hell an act of "terrorism" is...

Zip



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I think it's correct to use the root of the word. "Acts of terror" are terrorism. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror. No one is innocent anymore in America. We're all assumed guilty. Sorry, I don't have time to read the 4 pages, but I wanted to confirm my stance on this legislation.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Moe Foe]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
I don't feel the need for any extra "security," I feel quite safe at the moment, thank you very much.

Why is that?? Think about it! Its not due to you personal ability but the government's improved ability, which comes through constraining personal freedoms!

Originally posted by Zipdot
I never blamed any government organization for 9/11, except the USAF, which should have shot down those planes.

Why do you blame the USAF?? Weren't the people in the plane and in the WTC not 'capable of protecting themselves'??Too Bad!! They should have exercised their right to purchase weapons along with the hijackers so they could have ahd a good bloody western shoot out in the airplane so that it becomes a flying grave yard, a couple of M16's and 45 mags would have done the trick!; that would've satisfied your ideals wouldn't they??


Originally posted by Zipdot
No, that is precisely what I am fighting against. I think we need to convict people of REAL CRIMES,......

What crime would you convict somebody of who wanted to come and kill you and your family but hasn't actually killed you yet? It would be right for the terrorist to actually pop a couple of rounds into you before the police can "convict him of a real crime" ? Would you like that? The fairness or would it be better if he was stopped before the bullets start flying?
OH! right you can take care of yourself !! Good luck with that against some jihadi flying a 747 into your house!!



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
IAF101, ever heard of 'conspiracy to commit murder'? It is a crime and as such any evidence that leads the authourities to believe you are planning such an attack will open the door for a PROPER court case and jail time.

Its a complete lie that they cannot do anything to but put people on these lists. If they have evidence that proves that they are indeed terrorists and a threat to us they can use the courts. But they dont, why I wonder?



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I like this. If you make it to a terror watch list, you should be prevented from buying guns. I'm ok with that.

before you tell me I'm next on the watch list, don't bother, I'm not that paranoid



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join