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.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by grimreaper797
they banned assualt weapons for some time...
Democrats, some liberals and groups like mother against guns, or whatever is called, are the ones who have done this. in fact this administration allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire, but guess again, since it does not fit with some people's agenda to "rise Americans against the present administration" these same people do not mention these facts.
BTW who was the first president, at least in recent times, who said that the right of Americans to own guns is illustrated clearly in the Constitution?....
Originally posted by vuoto
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by grimreaper797
they banned assualt weapons for some time...
Democrats, some liberals and groups like mother against guns, or whatever is called, are the ones who have done this. in fact this administration allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire, but guess again, since it does not fit with some people's agenda to "rise Americans against the present administration" these same people do not mention these facts.
BTW who was the first president, at least in recent times, who said that the right of Americans to own guns is illustrated clearly in the Constitution?....
Maudib is displaying a common thinking disorder that about 35% of Americans suffer from. This notion that "liberals" are responsible for any loss of freedom and that George Bush is seeking only the protection of our nation. Forget about domestic spying, forget about secret prisons or the repeal of habeas corpus. It's those liberals who are taking away our freedom through gun laws.
Why any common citizen needs an assult rifle is beyond me...it seems more than a little extreme...I am a bonified liberal and proud of it damnit. I have no problem with guns, I personally don't care for them but that is my personal choice one I am not about to deny anyone but the NRA is a crackpot case these days...most of the gun control measures are perfectly reasonable...why not a background check? Why not a waiting period? Anyone who can't wait 48 hours or a week, or even a month to get a gun is already suspect in my book...or for that matter why not a limit on the number of guns you can buy in a month? Lets be honest a person who is buying a bunch of guns unless a bonefied dealer, is again suspect in my book, a right wing militaman or gang member...no the hard right use these common sense controls as a boogie man to scare the simple minded...while I am not accusing muaddip of simple mindedness his notion that only liberals threaten his civil liberities is.
www.issues2000.org...
President:
George W bush
Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)
Rep. Sr Senator:
John McCain
Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
www.cnsnews.com...
The Republican-controlled Senate has already voted 52-47 to extend the ban, thanks in part to 10 Republicans who broke ranks. Because the March 2 vote came in the form of an amendment to another bill, the legislation was later voted down in an effort to defeat the measure.
Originally posted by DevinS
Well close to an answer, but Muadib(Sp?) if the president has sex with a 6 year old girl, then stamps her forehead classified, did he not committ a crime anymore?
Originally posted by DevinS
Just because he stamps his illegal wiretapping of American Citizens classified doesn't make it not happen, it still happened, he still broke the law, just now has a classified stamped on it.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
so your either telling me bush was pro ban or he will just say whatever he has to in order to get the majority vote and really didnt care about our issues anyway.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
appartently majority in the senate rules. it was republican majority and yet it swayed toward banning the gun. so obviously its not such a black and white line like you make it out to be. they gray the area and its pretty obvious what they are doing.
President Bush
Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting. (Dec 1999)
Originally posted by grover
If this administration is so above board and honest and has nothing to hide then why has it classified more stuff as top secret than any other administration in history?
Originally posted by grimreaper797
i dont want guns just for hunting....
Originally posted by grimreaper797
maybe your support for the government is all trusting but the founders of this country believed we should give that kind of trust to the selective few. thats why they made the second amendment. just because technology has changed does not mean that the interpretation of the law should change.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
the second amendment was made in order to combat all threats.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
you cant combat all threats when you limit the technology of the people who must defend themselves. the government cant have all these weapons and seriously expect the people to fend them off should they start to get greedy and power hungry.
Originally posted by Muaddib
If you actually believe that the forefathers wanted any person to own ships or any advanced technology which allowed mass destruction you are out of your mind.
Originally posted by df1
Hogwash. At the start of the revolutionary war the american navy had fewer than 12 warships. The continental congress overcame this lack of a navy by authorizing privateers to wage war on seas against the brits. Privateers were private citizens that owned warships. Other countries also thought that the founding fathers were out of their minds for trusting their citizens. We need more crazy leaders like the founding fathers instead of the clandestine government we have now which does not trust its citizens. Your view of history and government is not only inaccurate, it is unAmerican.
Wiki or research "privateers" as you wish.
The original function of a letter of marque (or Letter of Reprisal) was to right a private wrong. For example, when a Dutch merchant has his goods stolen in Germany, and he cannot gain satisfaction for his loss through legal or diplomatic means, he can be granted a Letter of Marque by the Dutch government. Such a letter allows him to "capture" a German merchant to compensate him for his loss. Since the early 18th century it was no longer in use as a means to right a private wrong. The function of the letter of Marque had changed. These letters were now used by governments, as an instrument of State, to augment the National Navy. This gave the state a naval force which could attack the commerce of the enemy at no cost to public funds. The ships captured had to be brought before an Admiralty Court and tried to ensure they were a legal prize, and not the property of a neutral state.
Privateers
During the War of 1812, America's Second War of Independence, President James Madison attempted to overcome the small size of the US Navy by issuing Letters of Marquee and Reprisal to private ship owners. This document allowed its holder to arm his vessel and act as a privateer, or, in essence, a legal pirate, representing the United States.
Originally posted by DevinS
The government should fear the people, not the other way around.
Also,
f Bush robs a bank, but then stamps classified on the vault, did he no longer rob it?
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by DevinS
The government should fear the people, not the other way around.
Also,
f Bush robs a bank, but then stamps classified on the vault, did he no longer rob it?
Bank? What bank? There was no bank.
Anyway if there was, it's a state secret.
Look out for the terrorists!!!