Obama's bloodbath ban on semi automatic rifles,shotguns and pistols., page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 11:48 PM by Scorched Earth

Originally posted by southern_Guardian

So what your saying here is that we wait for these horrible incidences to happen instead of preventing the majority of them before hand? Im sorry I have disagree.

I admit we will never be able to completely keep america safe from gun violence especially in schools but we can prevent alot of them from happening.

You cannot compare this situation in the middle east with gun regulation debate here, honestly.

Again, we dont put people in prison for what they MIGHT do.

What situation in the middle east? I didnt compare anything to it.

reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 11:55 PM by XTexan

reply to post by southern_Guardian

So long as an American civilian with no felony history and no history of mental illness can purchase firearms I have no issue with that type of regulation, aside from waiting periods that is.

As I said my issue comes with regulating certain types of guns, as i see no advantage to doing so, I could do just as much damage with a German Mouser as I could an AR.

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 12:38 AM by orangetom1999

Gentlemen,

The militia was and still is the people. Hence the wording...militia....and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
THe state is also the people..not the government.

By popular ignorance and uneducation...the tern has become the state as something more than the people.
You see..gentlemen..I know that in similar manner a silver dollar was a one dollar weight of silver...it was not just anything that the government said was a dollar..and called it a sliver dollar like the copper nickle junk issued today. A Silver dollar was a one dollar weight of silver.

The militia was made up of the people who brought thier arms to form a well regulated militia...not the government arming them.

Also ...I dont know if you folks have been educated to this but in the 1980s ...several states formed under the laws of those states...private peoples forming armed militias..in accordance with laws still on the books and not under the control of their state governors. The state governments did not like it but under the law could do nothing about it. Deleware comes to mind..also so does Missouri. Neither were these people the national guard.

Militia does not mean the National Guard nor under state government control ...though todays intelligences would have us think so.
During the Clinton Administration they tried this tack. I knew back then that it was bogus.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 01:00 AM by XTexan

Originally posted by orangetom1999
THe state is also the people..not the government.

I never thought of it that way orange, thanks for that kernal of knowledge.

By popular ignorance and uneducation...the tern has become the state as something more than the people.

This is leading a lot people down the path... If it was mandatory to teach the constitution and the bill of rights in school, then everyone could be on the same page, instead everyone is left to interpret it how they see fit...

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 09:24 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by orangetom1999

The militia was made up of the people who brought thier arms to form a well regulated militia...not the government arming them.

nobody is arguing that.

What im arguing is that "the people" and "a militia" are seperate entities much in the way "the job force" and "nuclear technician" are not the same things.

One is made up of the other - but that does not mean that anyon in the job force has access to a nuclear reactor, in the way a nuclear technician does.

For the safety of a city, and the job force, a nuclear technicians access to a nuclear reactor shall not be infringed upon.

Thats exactly how the second amendment is written as it pertains to my example....

That doesnt mean that everyone in the job force has access. It means that the nuclear technician has access in order to protect the city and its people.

Just because you're a citizen of this country does not mean you belong to any militia.

A militia is a certain body OF the people.
A militia is not a completly body composed of all the people.

If there were true, then there'd be no reason to add "militia" and it would just be "the people"

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

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 10:34 AM by XTexan

Just wanted to add a link with a lot of information on the topic. It gives good info on both sides and it doesn't seem very biased. I found the in depth history of the evolution of the 2nd amendment very interesting.

Wiki link for the 2nd Amendment -- lots of good info

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 10:38 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by XTexan

That is really funny in a coincidence kind of way

I finished reading that this morning

It does give good info on it- but as far as discussion goes - it leaves the same gaps that our discussion has. (unless of course im being too biased

)

It gives historical references to what they could have meant, but doesnt give more than that to back it up - either way.

I go back to my other example of "all men are created equal"

They didnt mean that "ALL HUMANS" or even "ALL *MEN*" were created equal. This is self evident in slavery and lack of female rights.

So when they say "the militia" of a free state, i fail to see how they can suddenly have a change of heart to encompass meaning "all human beings"

what im saying is

by their own words, and other historical documents

i can prove that they thought women and non-white christian males were inferior.

So if the founding fathers had no intentions on giving those people equal rights why on earth would they insist on giving them a gun?

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 10:50 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

But more-over.

I've learned a lot from our discussion, texan, and i thank you.

Back to the OP (no matter how full of ignorance it is)

Barack Obama does not support anywhere close to "all" of those things the OP so ignorantly points out.

To xtexan (allow me to pick your brain for a moment)

These questions are in regards to the insinuations that the OP intends to make

1.) Do you support any sort of ban on any sort of weapon
2.) If you don't support ban, would you support a restriction? "waiting period" and "background checks"

3.) Do you believe felons should have access to fire arms (legally speaking of course)

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 02:34 PM by Scorched Earth

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Where does the government get the power to bear certain types of arms? From the people naturally.

How can the people delegate a power they do not already have?

In delegating a power, one does not LOSE that power, they simply ALLOW someone else to wield that power while retaining that very same power.

The government isn't here to put limits on us, it's quite the reverse actually.

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 04:04 PM by Symbiote

reply to post by Scorched Earth

That is an excellent plan.

The only problem I can see is that you might end up with heart disease from eating all that fatty meat.

Can we write you in on the ballot?

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Symbiote]

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 07:42 PM by XTexan

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
But more-over.

I've learned a lot from our discussion, texan, and i thank you.

Back at ya Andrew

Back to the OP (no matter how full of ignorance it is)

Barack Obama does not support anywhere close to "all" of those things the OP so ignorantly points out.

To xtexan (allow me to pick your brain for a moment)

These questions are in regards to the insinuations that the OP intends to make

1.) Do you support any sort of ban on any sort of weapon
2.) If you don't support ban, would you support a restriction? "waiting period" and "background checks"

3.) Do you believe felons should have access to fire arms (legally speaking of course)

1.) Sort answer, No I don't support restrictions of firearms (expecially when police forces continue to escalate their tactics and gear), other weapons (explosives, destructive devices) i am flexible on... Although in the case of a true milita (which I know nothing about how gun laws relate to them) I would support all weapons, with the exeption of WMDs

2.) I would support restrictions such as the current felony restriction (though I think that should be reviewed and in somecases, even felons deserve both the right to vote and arms possesion, depending on the crime of course). I also would support no sales to the mentally ill, but the medical community should determine whats mentally ill not the gov. And that should also be watched to avoid abuse. I support background checks, as long as accuracy is insured. The ones currently in use in the state of VA work for me (takes 5-10 minutes to complete), not familar with every style that is out there though. I don't agree with waiting periods, I don't see a lot of benifit to them... its mainly my opinion that most criminals dont buy guns legaly... the ones that do and who are determined to kill someone, will either do it with another weapon, or just wait till the waiting period is over. Its also my opinion that once a waiting period is accepted it will, over time, continue to lengthen until it is a ridiculous length...

3.) I covered that above, short answer no, but I do think it needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis, both for the 2nd amendment and the right to vote.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by XTexan]

[edit on 12-8-2008 by XTexan]

Also just wondering if anyone knows where to find information on how gun laws apply to current day militia membership??? I started a thread to discuss this and other issues related to state militias.

State Militias in Current Day America

[edit on 12-8-2008 by XTexan]

[edit on 12-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply posted on 12-8-2008 @ 08:57 PM by Anonymous ATS

Gentleman, and maybe ladies;

We are facing what will be some of the most crucial events and times in modern history. The upcoming election will surely determine many unforseen things never mentioned or campaigned about. Like new supreme court nominee's, the balance of power within the house cambers, are but a couple of examples. Special Interest groups are pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of their man, hoping for politcal pay dirt after the election outcome. What are they? Who is behind what, and why?
We all know very dirty deals are being cooked up and nasty plans hatched, if one side or the other take the prize! But what?
"Change we can believe in," is such an open ended statement coming from an unknown new comer, it aught to sent up warning flares...
That guy has yet to fully explain himself, or his agenda...
I think it behooves all of us, to tread lightly where we might politically lean at first glance...don't just jump and say that's it, I'm voting for him because he's ???? Wait, listen, think, ask questions, and question motives...
The campaign rhetoric, slick ad's, hidden messages, and outright propaganda coming from the media, and the parties, should NOT be believed at first reveal, or sound bite. This is what they want you to do.
Falling for a blitz of nice sounding but otherwise empty promises. It is rhetorical cotton candy to bait you and sway you, without thinking.
Yes, this election, and the one who ultimately sit's behind the Oval Office desk, is going to have a profound impact upon the USA as well as the world. One man and one man only, is qualified to handle the upcoming pressures of a world spiraling out of control, the wars to come over oil, fresh water, food. One man only can handle the economic mess that the USA and the world are facing, as all the bank failures, and the extent of the bankrupt American economy finally surfaces, and the full exposure and depth of the damage done to the USA is revealed. One man only can stand in the shoes of the military man, the front line infantry man, and know what is in his soul and thoughts, as he faces more wars, that the USA WILL be involved in, during the next 10-15 years. Whoever that one is, he had be ready from day one, to take on an onslaught of deception and cunning coming out of the Kremlin. China will also flex muscle, over Hong Kong, and Tibet. Who ever is elected, he had better be a gutsy, iron willed, ballsy, tough, mean S.O.B. to get the job done and to lead...
May I submit, that screwing with the constitution, and the bill of rights, and basically gut punching the American society, while ripping out it's 250 year old heart, to set up a Socialist regime, may not be the answer Americans really seek! I cannot tell anyone how to vote. Thus, I caution all, do not fall for mindless, blind, mania driven uber fest's for anyone! We don't need a rock star, we need someone who is a real CHIEF, a leader, a Lion amoung men...because that is what it is going to take...the coming sea changes in the world are going to be severe enough, to demand we make the right decision on Nov 8th...It's your decision, decide wisely! It may be the most important decision you make in your life!

reply posted on 13-8-2008 @ 03:46 AM by doomsauce

Sorry about going a bit off topic but I wanted suggest a different option that unfortunately would never happen.

What if we required every adult, with no criminal record or documented mental illness, to own one firearm? They'd also have to possess a minimum amount of ammunition for said firearm. You could have a "firearm patrol" that would from time to time knock on your door, ask you to show that you are indeed in possession of your required firearm and ammunition and then be on their way. If you do not have it you'd get the equivalent of a "fix-it ticket" that required you to prove that you have your firearm in a certain amount of time. If you still don't, you get fined and still have to show proof of firearm ownership but no threat of incarceration.

Of course there'd also be required safety and operational training that would begin sometime shortly after reaching the age of 18 but before reaching the age of 19. You'd be able to choose your own firearm from a list (no .50 cal water cooled brownings, sorry) ranging anywhere from say a .177 varmint gun to a 30.06. That way the hoplophobes could just have their one single shot .22, trigger locked and stuffed into 1 ton safe in some out the way corner of their basement, while the hoplophiles could have their 500+ arsenals filling every nook and cranny of their vehicles and homes. And of course there'd be everybody in between.

Seriously, this is not a joke, I think it's a good idea. I myself have my required weapon. Just a nice little ruger 10/22 that I occasionally use to plink cans and gophers. I haven't fired anything bigger in well over a decade since the last time I applied for a deer tag. Although I've been feeling the itch as of late and have stopped a few times in the local sporting good stores to check out the hunting rifles but I haven't actually applied for a tag yet.

reply posted on 13-8-2008 @ 06:09 AM by Rick007

reply to post by orangetom1999

Gentlemen?
Did somebody come in? Ha! Ha!

reply posted on 13-8-2008 @ 06:16 AM by Rick007

reply to post by vor78

It seems you have been fooled by the term " Assault Rifle"
If it is not a fully auto rifle it is not an " assault rifle" it is a " semi automatic rifle"
You are using the term incorrectly.

reply posted on 13-8-2008 @ 08:35 AM by orangetom1999

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by orangetom1999

The militia was made up of the people who brought thier arms to form a well regulated militia...not the government arming them.

nobody is arguing that.

What im arguing is that "the people" and "a militia" are seperate entities much in the way "the job force" and "nuclear technician" are not the same things.

One is made up of the other - but that does not mean that anyon in the job force has access to a nuclear reactor, in the way a nuclear technician does.

For the safety of a city, and the job force, a nuclear technicians access to a nuclear reactor shall not be infringed upon.

Thats exactly how the second amendment is written as it pertains to my example....

That doesnt mean that everyone in the job force has access. It means that the nuclear technician has access in order to protect the city and its people.

Just because you're a citizen of this country does not mean you belong to any militia.

A militia is a certain body OF the people.
A militia is not a completly body composed of all the people.

If there were true, then there'd be no reason to add "militia" and it would just be "the people"

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

Andrew,

A nuclear reactor is not a firearm and not covered by the second amendment. However ...the militia is made up of the people....it is not just a body of the people....that is obvious. You stopped short in your example. Also a militia need not be under the contorl of the state governments.
The militia and the people are not seperate entities. They are one and the same.

sorry Andrew...though I understand what your logic and reasoning is attempting to say ...I find it faulty.

Our own elected government representing us...is trying to pass of a copper nickle dollar coin..the Eisenhower dollar.. as if it was the same as a dollar weight of silver...or a dollar of silver by weight as the statute reads.

Then later on they are actually brassy enough to try to pass off a copper nickle Susan B, Antnony dollar in lieu of a dollar of silver by weight when it is only 2/3 the size and weight of a fifty cent piece yet claims to be twice as much. You have to be educated to get this naturally stupid.

Notice these coins and paper notes..say on them "In God We Trust??"
Since I now know that our government is in the official counterfitting buisness...what is the name of their god in.."In God We Trust??"
It must be the counterfit god. The counterfitter. The liar..the deceiver.
Satan...Lucifer.

When and where did they make the switch to the counterfit god and not tell anyone??
How did most of us get so educated we could not figure it out.???
Remember this implication here....this same bunch of counterfitters in our government pays for our pubic education into this system of counterfits...across the board.

And we want to trust this same government with our 2nd amendment rights..president, congress,...or judiciary?? Or any other right for that matter!!
Think long and hard on this one.

Sorry Andrew...not happening on this end. I dont care who is running for office...they are not addressing this issue...so what confidence do I have on any other issue they are wont to bring up?? It will all be confetti to get into office. Fluff...glitter etc etc..et al.

The only member of congress of whom I know to be wont to address any of these basic issues is Ron Paul..and they wont let him get anywhere near a political issue before the public. He is ostracized pretty much across the board by whorish counterfit political process.

Once I am in posession of this line of thought..this informations ..I am able to look at our phoney baloney news media shilling for this political process and see them too for the counterfitters they are. All of them. THe famous motto.."We're looking out for you!!" Not happening!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply posted on 13-8-2008 @ 11:25 AM by orangetom1999

Originally posted by Rick007
reply to post by vor78

It seems you have been fooled by the term " Assault Rifle"
If it is not a fully auto rifle it is not an " assault rifle" it is a " semi automatic rifle"
You are using the term incorrectly.

Rick007,

The use or misuse of the term "Assault Rifle" is designed to invoke fear in the minds of the public..to instill a controlable, predictable, malliable, gauranteed reaction.

There are lots of words and phrases like this used as control/fear mechanisms ..even to get us to vote a predictable, controllable, malliable, gauranteed manner in the voting booth.

Words like "Hitler." I've heard that one all my life..so I know and understand that I am automatically required to jump on the bandwagon and do like all the other apes out here...in fear and terror...a gauranteed response. Gauranteed from most people other than me that is.

This counterfit system likes to put so many of us on the string with words comparing everyone they dont like or of whom they do not approve ...to "Hitler." Hitler has become a watchword unto itself.

It is the same with the word "Assault Rifle." No or very little thinking going on among the public.

Another 20 or 30 years and it will be

Assault Mopeds.
Assault sllingshots and blow guns...
Assault Sport Utility Vehicles/SUV's
Assault pocket knives...

Assault ...whatever they dream up next for the public to fear in order to more control us.

etc etc et al.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 13-8-2008 by orangetom1999]

reply posted on 13-8-2008 @ 01:49 PM by vor78

reply to post by Rick007

If I did use it incorrectly in one of my earlier posts, it is an unintentional mistake and/or a typo. I know the difference between an 'assault' rifle and a full-automatic. This was the crux of my earlier argument and a point I tried to stress; there's very little practical difference between an 'assault' rifle and a 'hunting' rifle, and hence, there's absolutely no reason to ban 'assault' rifles. The latter can be semi-automatic just as the former and often, those hunting rifles fire a more powerful round. Magazine capacity is the only practical difference.

I am not in favor of banning 'assault' rifles AT ALL.

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 12:24 AM by netwarrior

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
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.

You know, I was reading the entire thread before I replied, but this one took the cake.

OK, Mr. Wiggin, by your own stated definition of the Militia. I give you Title 10, US Code Section 311.

10 USCS [Armed Forces]
"311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age [which deals with
membership in the National Guard] who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of
the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia."

USC Title 10 Sec. 311
Your statement about being a citizen is one thing, being in a militia is completely and totally incorrect. I am in the militia. As a matter of fact, most people live out their lives blissfully unaware that *they* are in fact, in the militia. Notice the distinction they state between the Militia and the National Guard.

I get a warm and fuzzy feeling everytime somebody says "but...but...the well organized militia is the National Guard!"

Wrong once again. The National Guard was not created until the Dick Act of 1903, whereas the 2nd Amendment with it's "well organized militia" was written in 1787. Additionally, it is generally accepted among constitutional scholars that "well regulated" means "trained." This is one of the most hotly debated statements in constitutional law today. Yes. I train. I take my role in the militia very seriously. Assuming you are within the ages stated above, you, sir, are derelict in your duties as stated by US law.

My grandparents went through Katrina. My grandfather always decried my so-called "assault weapons" and stated many times pre-Katrina that he wished I would get rid of them. Well, after the second night of him having to guard the generator he was using to keep his insulin cold, he wished he had one of my evil black rifles.

An addendum. Obama can ban the sale of AKs all he wants to. I roll my own, and fine ones if I do say so myself. I am the owner of one of only three MOA (aka 1" groups at 100 yds) AKs that I have ever seen.

reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 10:07 PM by orangetom1999

reply to post by netwarrior

Holy..Cow.....

Someone else gets it.. Halelujah...

I was begining to feel all alone out here. I did not however know of the act which formed the national guard. Thanks for that.

I am aware that the national guard and the militia were formed years and years apart. I did not know the essential dates.

As to your "little Black Rifles." We had the same conditions going on here in Virginia after Hurricane Isabel. Mind you now conditions were no where as severe as down in New Orleans but the number of people totall unprepared was startling. Electricity was out for many as long as week to ten days. There was a noticable rate of theft of peoples generators right out of thier yards. I chained mine down and stayed up close to it for long hours through the night. I have since purchased a second larger wattage generator.

It is amazing to me the number of people who can get ready for tonights game but cannot get prepared for a hurricane.

Thanks,
Orangetom