Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama to ban the sale/transfer of ALL Semi-Automatic weapons.

page: 12
46
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Illahee
 


Illahee is right. You should read for yourself.

A politician is a man, who can have an opinion.

But a representative is a person who, regardless of their opinion, has to live up to an agenda.

Obama believes that the constitution allows states to decide, and wants it to stay that way

Despite the fact that he may support gun bans - he also supports the freedom of the states to CHOOSE gun bans.

So your misplaced ignorance of Obama is just that. Ignorant.

You should be placing your potential hatred with any state that decides to ban guns.

Of course - it goes back to the constitution.

By literal definition of the 2nd amendment, if you dont belong to a well-organized militia - you dont have a right to bare arms.

But of course, sensationalism like this thread will leave that out in favor of stars and flags.




posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Actually, the ruling states that "it is an individual right" not a collective right only for those involved in a larger entity. If you read the decision, you would know this.

Heller

You can believe whatever Obama says. You can believe whatever you want. Truth be told, he has a proven history of trying to ban guns, no one can dispute that with anything that resembles a fact. If you want to take a chance to lose your guns, by all means, vote for Obama. Not a bet Im willing to take.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by salchanra
 


actually, the second amendment states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



The right of the people. In this sentance, "the people" is a pronoun for "a well regulated militia"

Only if you throw all known forms of grammatical structuring out the window, can you derive a conclusion that ALL PEOPLE should have the right to bare arms.


[edit on 8/12/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Feels like Im talking to myself. Please read the majority opinion. Scalia did a rather extensive study on exactly what the wording means.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by salchanra
 


There's only one way to read it

How its written.

When you apply simple, elementary level grammar to it - it becomes very very very clear.

The right of the people to bare arms is not the subject


the right of the MILITIA composed of the people to bare arms however, is.


The founding fathers thought women and blacks/yellows/reds were inferior.
They wrote no laws into the constitution giving them any rights what so ever.

"all men are created equal" ??

Except for blacks, reds, yellows, and females.

So - if only white male christians were considered equal by the founding fathers - (Most of whom belongs to a militia) then why would they give people who dont have rights, a right to bare arms?

It doesnt make any sense

at all.

[edit on 8/12/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


This is pointless. If you are not going to take the time to research the decision and actually have facts to stand on, I will not entertain you. The OP talked about Obama wanting to ban guns. Youre best arguement to date, is we should embrace this fact because its on a local level. Why elect someone that wants to start a trend of seizing guns. Ever hear of this thing called legal precident? If its okay for one place, then others will follow, which is exactly what the majority in Heller said is illegal. Come calling again when you know your Constitution and have actually read the ruling. Until then, this is simply a waste of time.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by salchanra
 


I have taken the time. I have read your side of the argument, and your side of the argument makes zero sense.

Grammar. Its important. The founding fathers believed in it, and it hasnt changed much since then.

You write a sentance.

The sentance has a subject, some pronouncs, some verbs, maybe a preposition, a beggining a middle and an end.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment no differently.

Strict adhearence to how it is written would result in the loss of our rights to own any weapons. So i dont see why you, or the OP find it okay to complain. Count your blessings.


Furthmore, and on a different note


The right to bare arms is not being infringed upon wtih gun control

the only way the right to bare arms would be infringed is if all arms were banned.

banning excessive arms is not taking away your right to bare arms.

you still have the right to own a gun.

its simple.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


What would be considered an "Excessive" arm?

Would Obama support a new assault weapons ban? and if so doesn't that overrule the will of the states?



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


The 2nd Amendment didn't say anything about only having the right to own the arms that the federal government allows us to. It didn't give the feds any authority to restrict what arms are owned by the people.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Andrew,
By your logic only Brown Bess smoothbore muskets and Pennsylvania rifles would be legal. After all thats the weapons that our Militia used to repell the British. Since thats the only weaponry that was available at the time, no weapon invented since the 2nd was written would be legal. Makes absolutely as much sense as your assertions. The militia ARE the people, not any standing government entity.

Zindo



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
What the democrats don't understand is many people will not turn in there guns,
At the start of WW2 the night of DEC 7 1941 the government ask for civilian to help man the beaches in Hawaii.
About 10% of the civilians that showed up had banned full auto weapons.
but then again 30 of the volunteers were Japanese.

I started collecting guns 45 years ago and i still have about 10 guns that have no gov records on them.
That mean there is no government records that shows that i own them.
i have the receipts but the sales in those days were not required to be recorded.

I am not going to turn in any of my guns.
And the "records" free guns are stored where they can not be found.
They may get some guns from me but not all of them.

I also keep a couple of body-bags from my days as a firefighter.
why, don't be a burglar and have me get you.
I will just bag them up and bury them deep.

Saves the cops the paperwork and me the hassle.

If i don't have a gun i have two longbows.

I also have worked for 30 years as a mine blaster. and can roll my own powder.
I have lived in so many states that the government would have a very hard time finding the paperwork



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by salchanra
 

You write a sentance.
The sentance has a subject, some pronouncs, some verbs, maybe a preposition, a beggining a middle and an end.
The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment no differently.
Strict adhearence to how it is written would result in the loss of our rights to own any weapons. So i dont see why you, or the OP find it okay to complain. Count your blessings.
Furthmore, and on a different note
The right to bare arms is not being infringed upon wtih gun control
the only way the right to bare arms would be infringed is if all arms were banned.
banning excessive arms is not taking away your right to bare arms.
you still have the right to own a gun.
its simple.



Grammar. Its important. The founding fathers believed in it, and it hasnt changed much since then.


Spelling, it's also important. Condescension has its place and time, but this is not it. Rocks, glass house, et al. =)

That being said, the entire point of the thing is that the citizenry is the well regulated militia.

The Constitution is not giving unto the American citizen the right to keep and bear arms, it is defending that right that I was "given" simply by being thrust into this world as a living, breathing creature. My species was intelligent (?) enough to invent this lethal device, and by the fact that I exist, I have the "right" to defend such existence. By proxy, my family has the right to such defense as well. This is not something that a (very fine) piece of paper has given me, this is something that millions of years of evolution have given me.

The state of life is something that no one can or will remove my right to defend. Likewise, although it is encouraging that our "Founding Fathers" saw fit to put that right into words, I do not need such words to enable my defense of said state of life.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Only if you throw all known forms of grammatical structuring out the window, can you derive a conclusion that ALL PEOPLE should have the right to bare arms.


Fortunately for the rest of us, a majority of the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

In all other cases in the Constitution when "the people" is used, it refers to an individual right.

Even a cursory review of the Founders' personal and professional writings indicate that they intended for all Americans to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Currently, those on both sides of the argument agree that convicted felons and the mentally incompetent represent two exceptions.

You are either grossly misinformed or you're just blowing smoke.

/67cnd9

www.guncite.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 2008/8/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I see it like this. Let him, or anyone be stupid enough to try to take the guns away from Americans, to try to take away more of our rights, see what it gets them in return.

You WILL NOT disarm me. I KNOW I'm not the only one who feels that way.
You want my semi-auto's? Come get em.


There are two types of criminals that are a danger to gun owning good citizens. There are criminals waiting on someone to take away your RIGHTS to defense, and there are criminals waiting to take away your RIGHTS to defense.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I don't think much of alex jones and his hype but here is a clear explanation of the second amendment.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by salchanra
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Actually, the ruling states that "it is an individual right" not a collective right only for those involved in a larger entity. If you read the decision, you would know this.

Heller

You can believe whatever Obama says. You can believe whatever you want. Truth be told, he has a proven history of trying to ban guns, no one can dispute that with anything that resembles a fact. If you want to take a chance to lose your guns, by all means, vote for Obama. Not a bet Im willing to take.


If you look at the heller decision you will see it was clearly left open for another phoney gun ban. Its worse than you know.

Now they want to ban bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns, saying they are "cop killers" Give me an fn break. How many cops have been killed with bolt action deer rifles in the last quarter century.

Demo lies. Obama Lies, and now Biden Lies.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
You just proved my point. Nations such as Finland and Switzerland have similar rates of firearm ownership as the US, but much lower violent crime rates.

Iam finnish so some comments on finnish sit.

For finland it is not about the amount, but the type of weapons you own. Finland has lots of huntingweapons. Long rifles and shotgun. those type of weapons are not big problem, because everybody sees you are packing such thing. Those weapons are hard to hide. police will take that away from you, if they see you carrying it in city or neigbourhood. you get to court about that matter.

The problem is pocketweapons as they are called here. smal easily hidden pistols or cutoff shotgun and smg's. For those we have we have very strick legaslation. getting pistol in finland is very hard (all thought one lunatic got one legally this spring, result school slaughter). only valid reason to own even big pistol is sportshooting, meaning you must be member of local shootingclub. Only place you are allowed to use that gun is weaponsrange. carrying a consealed and loaded weapon is a serious crime here.

allso local police decides about every gun licence given. person by person. if local police thinks you are not ok to get gun, you won't get one. This greatly reduces the number of weapons at lunatics hands, because local police knows not to give licence to mad persons.

about criminals getting guns. if normal citicens don't have guns, criminals can't steal them. it is that simple plus we have regulations, that require weapons to be stored in hardened gun safes. so house burglars won't get them. crimes with guns are very rare here, because suitable weapons are rare. Offcourse this does not go with US, because you have flooded your country with too many easily available handguns. Sorry for you.

plus criminals are more inteligent here. It is lot easier to rob a house, when residents are not there. Nobody is defending, when they are away. they might get a good look at you and tell that to police. allso armed robbery knows lots more jailing, if you get caught. if finnish robber notices that resident are home, he/she runs like hell. It is not worth risking getting busted.

Finnish murders are usually made with knife or some random blunt item. usually alcohol is involved and persons know each other. if gun is involved that usually means sniping with rifle or shotgun on stomach.

By the way, is it true that normal US police carry only pistol, would think that with your gun levels every police would need at least bulletproof vests and assault rifles and armored cars. At least thats what finnish police would ask for in such situation.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hopea
 


Its much the same here. Handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the US, and in fact account for around 80% of firearm-related murders in the US yearly. Overall, firearms are the weapon used in around 60-65% of all US murders yearly.

As far as US police are concerned, yes, virtually all are armed only with a pistol or revolver as a carry weapon. They may or may not have a rifle in their car as a backup. As far as I know, it is a choice of the local police departments as to how heavily to arm their officers. However, despite what the media would have you believe, the vast majority of the US does not have a gun problem and there's no need for the police to be more heavily armed. There are some exceptions, but its mainly confined to the inner cities, where gang warfare and other illegal activities are rampant as well.

For the remaining 95% of the country, its not much of an issue and this is the reason that gun owners get so defensive over the subject. They don't understand why they should be punished for the actions of a very small minority, especially when they know it will do little to impede criminals from owning the weapons subjected to the ban.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Well said.

In most of America, outside the urban crime areas, LE and the citizens have a great working relationship, and the communities are very quick to lend needed support, and assistance. Most people although they want their privacy respected, would go to great lengths to provide any needed supplies as well in an emergency. Yes we do support LE in crime fighting here in America to a high degree.


In the crime ridden urban areas however both the criminals and corrupt LE are to be feared equally. Camera phones and mini cams have toned things down a bit but its still not good. The same with our guns laws and gun use. We can't hold the 98% of good Law enforcement liable for what 2% do wrong. and it is equal for the 98% of gun owners.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
An amusing thread, I gotta tell ya. It never fails to amaze me when I behold the lack of understanding present in sheeple who toe the party line. So many things I'd like to comment on, so little space.
1. An "assault weapon" is, by definition, capable of selective fire (both full and semi auto). So called "assault weapon" bans have no effect on true assault weapons. Those are already covered by the National Firearms Act.
2. A semi auto ban will effectively disarm the populace, thus allowing the powers that be to do with us as they will. Just like criminals, no civil servant wants to get shot just for using you as he will.
3. Once they get those "evil black guns" out of the way, you can look forward to a ban on bolt action rifles of all descriptions. after all, the military uses such devices as sniper rifles, therefore the powers that be will want to disarm all those pesky civilian snipers out there too. A sniper rifle cannot be used to hunt, anymore than I can kill a deer with my AK. Those a WAR WEAPONS, and of course have no other capabilities. BTW, shotguns make excellent trench guns, so I'm sure they won't be allowed to stand either.
4. The construction of the 2nd amendment-- the initial phrase, " a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", is what is known as a "preamble", it is not the operative clause. it sets forth one justification, out of many, for the operative clause which follows, which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which is quite clear in its wording. In all other amendments, "the people" are understood by all to include all U.S. citizens, so why would this one amendment mean anything different, with the exact same word? Imagine if only politicians as a class were allowed to speak freely as guaranteed by the first amendment, and perhaps you'll understand the danger in singling out one class of American to apply the constitution to, making everyone else second class citizens, without rights. Yes, grammar is important. one should have an understanding of it before trying to teach it to others. as an aside, I go sleeveless quite often, thereby exercising my right to "bare arms". and while on the subject of Constitutional constructions, what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? A dictionary may help you there.
5. This very evening, in my home town, Obama called Palin a pig. hardly the behavior one would expect of a presidential aspirant. He also told the crowd the he was not going to take away their shotguns, their rifles, or their handguns. But sir, my ONLY rifle is an "assault weapon", as defined by the uninformed (semi-auto Romanian SAR-2). How am I to rectify that statement with his desire to ban "assault weapons" and Semi-automatic weapons? My answer is simple: when a man talks out of both sides of his face, I trust neither side. In reference to his first above mentioned comment, I assure you that although I am only a poor, ignorant hick hillbilly, I most certainly do not put lipstick on my pigs. That would be a waste of lipstick, and surely it would irritate both my wife and my pig.
6. I fail to understand why "gun violence" is singled out, as if it is so much more despicable than, say, "knife violence", ball bat violence", or even "claw hammer violence". Isn't the root problem violence, rather than the tool of choice in executing said violence? I was once told, long ago, that " a dangerous man is a dangerous man. Take away his gun, he will find a knife. Take away his knife, he will find a stick, or a rock. Some folks are just junkyard dog mean." I would think society should be interested in defending itself against such people, rather than inanimate objects, which after all have no power apart from the hand which animates them.

If you all can excuse me now, I feel a pressing need to go cling to my guns and my religion, out of my desperate bitterness.

Nenothtu






top topics



 
46
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution