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.

 

I need opinions from Dem's and Liberals- The Second Amendment.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I've seen a lot of fear on the board lately and one of them is that Obama(if elected), with the help of Congress, will take away or limit the 2nd Amendment. I've read this board a long time and I believe that once you get past the partisan stance here, Americans are Americans. The 2nd Amendment is an intrinsic right. "The right to guaruntee all other rights."

So, my question for Dem's(liberals), would you stand for this? Or would you vote out those that attempted this?

These are easy questions, no need to flame anyone here. THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL. I don't need to hear what Obama/McCain would/might do. I just want to see if I'm right about something.




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I would never stand for this. I honestly don't think Americans as a whole would either.

I've been one who has expressed fear that some Democrats could try to push through anti gun legislation. Could it really happen? Doubtful. It's still a scary thought to even have it considered though.

***Apparently I missed the part where this was being asked to Dems/Libs. Just so there is no confusion (I don't know how there could be) I'm neither.
***

[edit on 29-9-2008 by nyk537]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It's not as simple a question as it might seem.


The second amendment is already limited. There are certain "firearms" that we, as citizens, are not permitted to own. And there are certain people (felons, minors, certified mentally unsound) who are not permitted to own firearms.

Although I'm not a Democrat, I have some liberal views. If anyone attempted to disallow, ban or otherwise remove my 2nd amendment rights, I would fire them. I would not vote for them.

If they simply wanted to add more safeguards, depending on what they were, I don't have a problem with that.



[edit on 29-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]


JSR

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


im not a dem. or liberal, so i cant answer your question. but, i am curious as to why you choose this forum to ask that question. why not a politics forum?

just curious.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


As a liberal I agree that we need more restrictions on Assault Rifles. I believe that military grade weapons belong with the military.

The biggest problem I have with these weapons is no training is required to own one. I don't believe a so called rookie should be in possesion of such a firearm.

If the Second Amendment required you to have some kind of education before purchasing such a weapon it would help.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
reply to post by intrepid
 


As a liberal I agree that we need more restrictions on Assault Rifles. I believe that military grade weapons belong with the military.

The biggest problem I have with these weapons is no training is required to own one. I don't believe a so called rookie should be in possesion of such a firearm.

If the Second Amendment required you to have some kind of education before purchasing such a weapon it would help.


This outlook is arrogant. The military is a tool of the tyrants. So, civilians should be allowed to own any weapons they need to protect themselves against the military.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
As a FFV I would not stand for it.. I will do whatever I need to do to make sure it doesn't happen and on the bright side, I am not too worried, considering our government cannot even keep 50 million illegals out of the country, how are they going to round up 400 million guns. Our government is inept, it can't function at all so the citizens just need to walk away from it and let it fall on it's own... A government by and for the people cannot survive without the people... Just walk away and the giant will die by itself.

It really doesn't matter what our opinions are on the second amendment. Those who wrote it said we had the right to bear arms, not matter what and that's what they mean't. People here can say that isn't true but I am from one of those families who wrote that amendment and can honestly say those who say it isn't true are liars..

[edit on 29-9-2008 by GrndLkNatv]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dnbaudio

Originally posted by TheHunted
reply to post by intrepid
 


As a liberal I agree that we need more restrictions on Assault Rifles. I believe that military grade weapons belong with the military.

The biggest problem I have with these weapons is no training is required to own one. I don't believe a so called rookie should be in possesion of such a firearm.

If the Second Amendment required you to have some kind of education before purchasing such a weapon it would help.


This outlook is arrogant. The military is a tool of the tyrants. So, civilians should be allowed to own any weapons they need to protect themselves against the military.


How is that arrogant? I'm no longer in the military and still have the same belief. Paranoia setting in again? The Armed Forces are to protect the American people foreign or domestic.

Edited To Add: You do know that military personal are still U.S citizens just like yourself. They will fight right along side us...

[edit on 29-9-2008 by TheHunted]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
As a FFV I would not stand for it.. I will do whatever I need to do to make sure it doesn't happen and on the bright side, I am not too worried, considering our government cannot even keep 50 million illegals out of the country, how are they going to round up 400 million guns. Our government is inept, it can't function at all so the citizens just need to walk away from it and let it fall on it's own... A government by and for the people cannot survive without the people... Just walk away and the giant will die by itself.

It really doesn't matter what our opinions are on the second amendment. Those who wrote it said we had the right to bear arms, not matter what and that's what they mean't. People here can say that isn't true but I am from one of those families who wrote that amendment and can honestly say those who say it isn't true are liars..

[edit on 29-9-2008 by GrndLkNatv]


They are not rounding up any guns. Those that are already owned will be grandfathered in. They just want to seize the manufacturing weapons that have certain capabilities such as having a grenade launcher or a place to use a silencer.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Okay, so long as you let us in on what you are "right about", or even if your suspicions are not what you think you are "right about"...if you follow


Though I consider myself a moderate... IMHO the assaults on the 2nd Amendment will continue until "We the People..." say ENOUGH, then the SHTF!

There should be a moratorium on these assaults, and a roll-back on the regs forced upon the lawful gun owners to about, say 1799.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 



The biggest problem I have with these weapons is no training is required to own one. I don't believe a so called rookie should be in possesion of such a firearm.


Load.
Off Safety.
Point.
Shoot.
Safety On.

There! I pass with an *A* - and it didn't take one government dime to send me through school.

Your opinion - well, thankfully is yours.
Too superior for my taste.

I’m female (weigh 115 lbs) and I've shot everything from an cap gun to a 454 Casull (all 300 grains) and everything in between (semi-auto, full auto, rifle, shotgun, etc)!
Never had a problem yet - and never will - unless someone tries to take my guns away.
Then you’ll see a problem.




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
They just want to seize the manufacturing weapons that have certain capabilities such as having a grenade launcher or a place to use a silencer.


I know. With the gross availability of grenades of every street corner of America clearly a launcher mount is a terrible threat and not just an aesthetic accessory. Same goes for all the rampant bayonet attacks across the country. Though I still can't come up with a reason for barrel shrouds being on the list. Not even a sarcastic one.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I applause you on your expertise of weapons. I don't believe everyone that owns a weapon or wants to purchase one has the firearm experience that you have. Your qualification does not make everyone qualified to own those types of weapons...



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If they simply wanted to add more safeguards, depending on what they were, I don't have a problem with that.


Safeguards, as in, safety locks on the weapons? Or "safeguards," as in further infringement of the Second Amendment...?

Just curious.

To the OP... I am...well, Libertarian is closest. So I have liberal views on some things, and conservative views on others.

I believe that private citizens have the right to have ANY weapon at their disposal. Our right to bear arms (ANY arms) shall not be infringed.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
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.

As we have seen the wheels of "progress" can move fast.

So if there is an attempt by the powers that be to either limit or neuter the second amendment to the point of obscurity then the fight will be on.

Either voting all incumbent out of office....or confrontation on the streets...we as the American people can not stand for the blatant treason perpetrated by those that are our "elected officials."

The second amendment...as stated by other posters...is the right of the people to protect themselves from the tyranny of the government...period. It is not about duck hunting...target shooting...or other such nonsense.

And as for my ability to own a grenade launcher. Ill take it off of the guy who "never used it and dropped it once." (Yes I am a liberal)



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by cdoug1
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.
...snip...
The second amendment...as stated by other posters...is the right of the people to protect themselves from the tyranny of the government...period. It is not about duck hunting...target shooting...or other such nonsense.


Thanks for pointing this out. Since with all the guns in the US, there is no "well regulated Militia", and no real protection from "tyranny of the govt", I think the whole point is incredibly moot. I understand that some people like hunting or plinking, but to try and protect these hobbies by appealing so some kind of supreme consitutional considerations is ridiculous. If someone is a gun collector, you'll hear all sort of pathos and rhetoric from them, but in reality nobody intends the use the Second the way it was designed -- and so I couldn't care less.

I'd automatically vote for someone who provides universal health coverage aka socialized medicine, because that indeed is important. I'd also vote for someone who deports all illegal aliens (so you know I'm in fact not some kind of a liberal).

Guns are not important and are just another divisive issue.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Hold on guys. This was not meant to be a debate in any manner. I just want to know if the gov't would be supported or voted out if they attempted this. That's IT. Nothing more.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


In Clintons book he says his AWB was a big factor in the D's not being in charge for so long. Over at the daily KOS there was a thread going describing Obama and Bidens desire to reinstate and make permanent the AWB and the thread was mostly D's railing against it and asking how to go about getting this removed from the party platform because they believe it will cost them the election. So, some Dems at least think it's an election deal-breaker.

For me it's the only issue I vote on. Always against gun control of any kind but I'm not a Dem.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Intrepid - I come at this from a weird place

I can't actually call myself a liberal - or a conservative - so my opinion may not be what you're after

and there's no way of knowing what anybody will or won't do - or what they can or can't do - once in office

but I have to say - we can't stand for this

I would have to consider myself a pacifist if I have to label myself - and weapons of any sort just don't factor in to that philosophy in any obvious or reasonable, rational way

so, the 2nd Amendment is a thorn in my side that will never go away, and a source of never ending conflicting philosophies

but being a pacifist doesn't mean I'm not a realist - and that I don't understand what's at stake here

the 2nd Amendment is about more than what it's about - if you take my meaning

it goes far deeper than just the superficial: right to keep and bear arms

whatever issues we have as a people about guns - whatever limits or controls we believe are necessary - they need to be worked out in another arena - not here

this is a government of the people, by the people - and for the people

I hope

you take away the 2nd amendment - and that's no longer true

there may come a time, hopefully, when that really is an absurd thing to believe

and I absolutely feel that it's a defeatist view of mankind's potential

but we aren't there yet



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cdoug1
So if there is an attempt by the powers that be to either limit or neuter the second amendment to the point of obscurity then the fight will be on.

Already happening


How To How to Obtain a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit:
Time Required: Up to 92 Days
1.Applicants must be U.S. citizens, Tennessee residents, and at least 21 years of age. In addition, applicants must not have felonious records, a history of substance abuse, or be disabled due to mental incapacity
2.Obtain eight hours of handgun safety training through a state-approved program.
3.Submit a handgun carry application, proof of handgun safety course completion, $115 application fee, and photo ID at any Tennessee driver's license station.
4.Get fingerprinted. Once you have submitted your application, you will be given a phone number to call to schedule your fingerprinting appointment. Once fingerprinted, the state will conduct a thorough background check.
5.Within 90 days of submitting all required documents and passing the background check, you will be issued a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit.

They can't outright take guns away, but no law prevents them from making it ridiculous to acquire one legally.
Basicly like,
"Gov: Yeah, sure you can own a 9mm, but first take hours of classes only open on weekdays, pay us $500, give us you're life history, dna and fingerprints then you're good to go untill next year"




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join