Obama's bloodbath ban on semi automatic rifles,shotguns and pistols.

In the end all - i guess one's opinion on "gun control" would have to be determined by your encounters with guns.


For me personally

I love my guns. I dont "collect" them - but i do own a few, and i do use them, one is a collectors item, but more an heirloom worth a lot of $$ that i hang on to for both reasons. So im for "no gun laws" in that regard


On the other hand - i've had a gun shoved in my face. Literally. I've been mugged at gun point - and i can tell you its the most scary thing you can ever imagine going through. So i am for "common sense gun laws" in that regard.

What Barack Obama suggests as "common sense gun laws" is going to be a matter of interpretation to some.


I see them as the right thing to do.
Some don't. And both are fine.

My over all point is that this thread is created out of garbage. "bloodbath" ?
Please

"shotguns"??
The shotgun is included in the title, but the OP doesnt have enough decency to give us examples of anything obama has ever said about getting rid of shotguns.

Its sensationalism at its worst, and it does neither side of any argument any good to take the path of the OP. Its, in my opinion, dispicable for one reason and one reason only

"don't talk about facts" was the entire premise of the OP.
its the silliest thing i've ever seen uttered in all of ATS. Not even on the skunk works forum is it ENCOURAGED to NOT discuss facts...and that forum doesnt even require them.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Shall not be infringed is very clear. How could you possibly equate that to mean "common sense gun laws are ok?"

reply to post by Scorched Earth


Because as society evolves so does the necessity for change.

"all men are created equal" didnt apply to black people back in the day

but does today


took an amendment to allow women to vote

"no wall shall be erected in favor of any religion"

But it happens all the time...

i mean i could go on all day...

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


You still failed to show how "time" changes protected rights.

Does time erode other rights, such as free speech?

reply to post by Scorched Earth


oh?

Time changed the lack of right that women DIDNT have - and now they do have - because of time. Society had to evolve before women were allowed to vote.

Society had to evolve before the words "all men are created equal" were held true and all non-white people were beginning to be seen as equals.


Time changed the fallacies of both instances set before us by allowing more common sense logic to take effect.

The gun control issue is the same thing.
Letting anyone at any time have any gun they want is about as intelligent as asking Charles Mason to baby sit your kids.

Common sense gun laws. You might not like them - but regardless of who gets elected - my suggestion to you is - get used to them.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


In your opinion.

Do you also think certain people shouldnt be able to practice the religion of their choice?

reply to post by Scorched Earth


If one religions grounds are based on the notion of harming other people

then no - they should not be allowed to practice that religion

but since no religion exists in that context - and only extremities of each religion are int he world today - that argument is moot.



and its not just my opinion.


Explain to me why when when defending the second amendment, people like yourself will say the constitution is a holy sacred, untouchable, not to be messed with document?


If the constitution in its original context - as it were when it was written - was still applied 100% today

the world would be very screwed up


Women couldnt vote
blacks would still be slaves

i mean you can really just go here
List of amendments


also keep in mind

some amendments repeal other amendments


So why is it only unfallable in instances that you dont want it to be?

Double standard?

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Scorched Earth

 

oh?

Time changed the lack of right that women DIDNT have - and now they do have - because of time. Society had to evolve before women were allowed to vote.

Society had to evolve before the words "all men are created equal" were held true and all non-white people were beginning to be seen as equals.


Time changed the fallacies of both instances set before us by allowing more common sense logic to take effect.

While what you say is true, I must point out that the examples you show are instances in which a right was expanded on instead of abridged. I see no issue with taking a right and saying "Hey this doesn't grant said right to enough people lets expand on it by including these groups", as was done with the womens rights and civil rights movements.

I (to my knowledge, though I could be wrong) don't know of any instances in which any rights from the Bill of Rights have been abridged... Aside from the 2nd amendment which seems to always be on the chopping block...

[edit on 11-8-2008 by XTexan]

Also just wanted to throw out a statement from the Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

How is this to be done if all firearms that give us a fighting chance are regulated out of existence?

[edit on 11-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply to post by XTexan


Prohibition of alcohol

first it was legal
then it was 100% illegal
then its was legal again

and now with restrictions. "common sense" restrictions that nobody argues with.

Do you brew your own Jack Daniels in your bath tub? (if you do ... tell me how!!)

I know alcohol isnt a gun, and a gun isnt alcohol, but you are labeling them with materialistic stickers. They are both "things". They arent religion. They arent gender. They arent race. They are THINGS.

The bill of rights was flawed in abolishing alcohol, so it was corrected, but not 100%, because there is still laws in place to restrict the creation of it.


In its essence, and with "emotion" stripped of it - you have "common sense gun laws"

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

 

Prohibition of alcohol

first it was legal
then it was 100% illegal
then its was legal again

and now with restrictions. "common sense" restrictions that nobody argues with.

Do you brew your own Jack Daniels in your bath tub? (if you do ... tell me how!!)

I know alcohol isnt a gun, and a gun isnt alcohol, but you are labeling them with materialistic stickers. They are both "things". They arent religion. They arent gender. They arent race. They are THINGS.

The bill of rights was flawed in abolishing alcohol, so it was corrected, but not 100%, because there is still laws in place to restrict the creation of it.


In its essence, and with "emotion" stripped of it - you have "common sense gun laws"

Alcohol (and ingestion of any mind altering substances) isn't covered under the Bill of Rights at all. (though I believe my right to ingest whatever I want should be protected under the 1st amendment, thats not the case). Alcohol was prohibited by the 18th amendment. The Bill of Rights only encompasses the first 10 amendments. But since its not covered in the Bill of Rights an actual amendment was never needed to ban it (unsure of why they went that route) but a law is all that was needed much like current day prohibition on illicit drugs. Had it been an actual right, it may never have been passed in the first place, and certain areas today would not be able to operate under "dry" laws...

and now with restrictions. "common sense" restrictions that nobody argues with.

And some do argue, such as why can I join the army and fight a war at 18 but I cant buy a beer?

by the way nice to see you again Andrew


[edit on 11-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply to post by XTexan


You asked what other amendments were erected to destroy personal freedom to obtain.

prohibition of alcohol is no different than a permanent ban on weapons.

Moving the field goal on me doesnt make my arguments wrong.

I dont condone a ban on all weapons, and neither does Obama, though the OP so ignorantly tries to make that claim.

I support common sense gun laws much in the way i support common sense laws on alcohol and tobacco.

To change subject for just a moment.

Its not my fault that the founding fathers were not very descriptive in their construction of the second amendment.

If they were a little more direct, then arguments like this would never have been created.


Does it confer the right to freedom to bear arms to a militia

or to all people regardless of militia

if its the latter, then whats the point of mentioning a militia?

It doesnt matter if "people" make up a militia.

A militia is not the same thing as "the people" as they refer to two different groups

"the people" refers to a group encompassing all american citizens

"a militia" refers to a specific group of "the people" who segregate themselves into another branch - a militia.

So as far as the wording goes - there in lies the main argument.

I agree with Obama.

Allowing anyone at any time to have any gun they want is just plain stupid.

And there's no reason for it.


Call me a liberal if you want.

Sticks and stones may break my bones.....(yeah you know the rest)

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Then why don't the gun hating politicians try to propose an Amendment repealing the 2nd?

Simple: Because they know if would never pass, so they simply continue passing unconstitutional gun control laws.

reply to post by Scorched Earth


You mean in the same way they continue to allow unconstitutional illegal searches and wire tapping?

"in the name of everyone's best security interests"?


its the same thing really.

Call it unconstitutional if you want.

Both sides are "guilty" of trying to make you and me safer at night.

reply to post by Scorched Earth


You mean in the same way they continue to allow unconstitutional illegal searches and wire tapping?

"in the name of everyone's best security interests"?


its the same thing really.

Call it unconstitutional if you want.

Both sides are "guilty" of trying to make you and me safer at night.


Lets not forget

Telling you which kinds of arms you are not allowed to bare does nto tell you that you cannot bare arms.

The constitution says you shall not infringe upon the "right to bare arms"

you still have a right to own a gun.

But since the constitution doesn't say what kind of gun...hmm.


At least - that's how i would approach this if i were a politician.
Because i believe that even gun-nuts should have restrictions in a world where you can walk into a mall with your "collector" AK47 and kill 50 or 60 innocent people.

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Im sorry, I didnt mean to make it seem like I moved the field goals on you. You compared weapons to alcohol, and I was just simply trying to show that you shouldnt compare them because one is a right and the other is not...

As far as the arguement that they didnt specify if it was for the people or limited to miltia, I have this to say, and its just my opinion of course...

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 second amendment does, in some eyes, leave it open to interpretation who exactly they meant. But, IMHO, when combined with this statement in the Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Viewing both of these statements, in addition to the other language used both in the days of the revolution and in the Declaration, I don't see how the 2nd amendment could be interpreted in any way other than for the people. The people would be unable to "throw off such Government" if the arms were not meant for them. A milita, even a state militia, still works for the gov. That tells me that people have the right to bear arms, because it is up to the people, not state militias or the military, to keep an eye on the gov.

reply to post by XTexan


Because when you compare it to OTHER statements in those same documents, it all becomes awfully confusing.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Except when it applies to black men, yellow men, red men, and brown men? And except when you're talking about women of any color.

So you see. Its hard to get the moral beliefs of the founding fathers correct when you're trying to compare them to our own.

They believed slavery was okay, and that women were not equal.

modern society does not believe that.

So, if interpretation goes out the window, then you are left with what they wrote, and have to take it at face value.


See above, i think you may have been posting when i made my edit about the "right to bare arms" in the post of mine right before this one.

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Telling you which kinds of arms you are not allowed to bare does nto tell you that you cannot bare arms.

The constitution says you shall not infringe upon the "right to bare arms"

you still have a right to own a gun.

But since the constitution doesn't say what kind of gun...hmm.

Your right, it doesnt say what kind of gun, therefore it implies all of them. The constitution does say you shall not infringe... I would say that telling me what kind of gun I can have does infringe on my right to bare arms.

I have a right to bear arms.

Some say "I have a right to bear certain arms"

That sounds like infringement to me...

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Furthermore, a "militia" is defined as such

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

source


So to be a citizen is one thing
To belong to a militia is another.

No where does the definition, nor in the 2nd amendment, does it constitute a militia as "all of the people" it confers the right to a militia COMPOSED of people.
Not all people in and of themselves.

A militia is an "organized group of people"

So to belong to a well organized militia (as specifically stated by the 2nd amendment) would grant you the RIGHT to bare arms.

If you dont belong to the militia - as another interpretation of the 2nd amendment would show you - you are not able to have that right.


It'd be like me saying


Free chips and fish to all members of ATS.
Then someone coming along and saying that since members of ATS all belong to the human race - then all members of the human race should get free chips and fish.


There are still government recognized, non-government militias in this country. They have those big weapons, and i believe the constitution confers them the right to have them.

I do not believe the constitution gives you or i the right to them.

But i am willing to compromise and say you can have them, after im satisfied you're not crazy, a criminal, or have ill intentions.

So impose restrictions, waiting periods, and background checks.


Problem solved.