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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I'm a "liberal" I suppose. More libertarian liberal, as oxymoronic as that is.
But I believe guns need to be kept out of certain peoples hands, felons who have used them, mentally unsound etc. Although there are some parts of me that say people shouldn't have handguns, because that's how most gun crimes are commited. However since they're not and I doubt you could take all them off the street, they should be allowed. There should be more thorough research into peoples background when they do want guns. Just like republicans say, let them tap peoples phones internet etc... if you dont' have anything to hide then you should worry. I say the same thing about guns.

And for the record, my family(brothers and father), own 3 shotguns, M-1 Carbine and a rifle. I personally own a AR-15 and Baby Eagle.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by djpaec]




posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I think “limiting” the second Amendment is smart. Weapons need regulations. People should be required to know how to safely use something they own that is specifically used to violently defend ones self or to cause someone the ultimate harm. I don’t like the thought of criminals that were prosecuted for violent crimes being allowed to own firearms either. Smart limitations will always be welcomed by me.


I do however think every American other than criminals like I mentioned above should be allowed to own a firearm if they are adults and meet certain requirements that are enforced for safety reasons. I don’t think anyone should be able to vote on this right, congress is suppose to protect the peoples’ rights and fix past administrative officials mistakes to do so. I’m baffled as to why instead of giving us rights throughout history they have taken them away. Often by using silly excuses; for instance with this gun issue they usually citing that it will drop crime rates but I doubt the criminals often own legal guns anyway.


I think it would be really careless of the American people to allow Congress to only permit police and soldiers to carry firearms. Our world is made up of all kinds, not every cop or soldier is a good person. Some of them are bad people; their jobs shouldn’t distinguish them from us so drastically. Being a cop or soldier doesn’t mean you are any more trustworthy with a weapon that could cause others harm.

Sadly, with how easily the Patriot Act passed and knowing many Americans are not even aware of what the act entails or how it has constricted their rights I fear that the government will easily take away our right to own firearms if they wish to. Thankfully people pay close attention to this issue and often push back fiercely from having this right taken away for now; I just wish I could say the same for all the other rights our government has constricted.


PS- I’m an Independent however I agree with liberals and Democrats when it comes to comprehensive firearm regulations.



[edit on 30-9-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I don't consider myself entirely a liberal, though some of my views could be characterized as such. I'm not a registered Democrat either, although I am an Obama supporter.

I would oppose any attempt at diluting the Second Amendment.

I'd also oppose any attempt to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, which based in a misconception - the semiautomatic rifles described as "assault rifles" are not real military weapons, they lack the ability to fire in full-auto, like a real military rifle.

It should be named the "scary looking rifles" ban



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
To answer your original question in short, I've been called liberal, libertarian, socialist, (and worse) and I'd be STRONGLY opposed to cuts into the Second Amendment.

In the larger picture, what a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the Second Amendment is about protecting the people FROM THE GOVERNMENT. It is NOT there to preserve hunting or target shooting. That sounds like extremist craziness when things are great and our government seems to be the "the good guys". But there's an odd catch-22 with the Second Amendment: when you have it, things are less likely to head toward "dictatorship" or other situations that would cause the people to have to resort to arms, as the Second Amendment enables. It is a deterrent that generally prevents things from getting that far. However, if you don't have that deterrent, then you're screwed because you have no means to get it.

Ideas like requiring training, or prohibiting certain kinds of weapons (laws like these already exist in many places) sound good on the surface, and are potentially good in the "good times" when the government can be (mostly) trusted to do the right thing. The problem with them, and why the Second Amendment says, in no uncertain terms, "shall not be infringed" is because such controls put the decisions into the hands of the government, the same government that the Second Amendment is supposed to be protecting us from.

The government can make it nearly impossible for citizens to pass the training and what are we going to do about it? Say it can't happen? How about the Justice Department requiring people to answer the question "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"

The arguments that military weapons should be excluded from private ownership (and again, many laws already exist about this), sound like "the voice of reason" on the surface, and in fact may even be a good thing, when times are good. But these are actually exactly the kinds of arms the Second Amendment wants in the hands of ordinary citizens, because these are exactly the weapons needed to maintain the deterrent that prevents people from ever having to use them. This has a cost, where sometimes these weapons get used in crimes - but the risk of not having an armed people (ordinary people, not just extremist nut jobs) is much higher.

Which brings me to the facts vs. emotion on the gun control debate. Seldom does either side stop and look at facts, like the number of times legal guns get used in crimes by ordinary citizens, etc. Guns are not anywhere near the danger that they are made out to be. They are scary and dangerous for sure, but it needs to be kept in perspective.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   
What I find really strange is that the republicans want their guns ownership and their second amendment rights to stay intact as does any other American but if you excercise the right to bear arms as intended they label you a terrorist.

If they were sooooo country loving wouldn't they be turning their weapons in left and right because they have no need for them as intended by the second amendment? The second amendment wasn't put in place to drink a sixer while shooting at deer, it was to insure the people had a means to fight their government if it ever became over bearing.

I do not think or fear that anyone will ever try to take peoples guns away who are responsible enough to own them.

[edit on 10/18/2008 by Spoodily]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I'm against second amendment rights being taken away and would vote accordingly.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


It it a right because they can't take it away. There is no one to vote accordingly for.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Excellent, I applaude you.. I have read and participated in many threads about the "right to bear arms" Ie the 2nd ammendment, and you are the first in a very long time that grasps the meaning of what it would mean if it was ever abolished..

It would mean that every other "right" could eventually be abolished.. this may sound a bit extreme right now, but contemplate it a bit.. to me the 1st and the 2nd ammendments go hand in hand, remove one and the other falls.. ( a bit simplistic, but dinner is ready and I'm hungry.)



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


It should be named the "scary looking rifles" ban



I LOVE IT!!!!!! lol....
under the awb my old 1897 sears and roebuck 22 was considered illeagle



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


They can severely limit it or render it toothless via the Supreme Court. And given that the next POTUS will have one or maybe two SCOTUS appointments to make, it makes for a very scary scenario indeed.

Once the Second Amendment is hobbled, the next to go will be the First Amendment, through the Fairness Doctrine.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


frankly...i don't feel like voting for a republican anytime soon. but as a democrat, the 2nd amendment is there for a reason and i'm opposed to removing it or changing it....for gods sakes we're all americans and we should all believe in the bill of rights. can't we just all work on improving our country, instead of trying to divide it?



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SideWynder
I LOVE IT!!!!!! lol....
under the awb my old 1897 sears and roebuck 22 was considered illeagle


You mean the old JC Higgins semi-auto with the tubular magazine?!?

That's the rifle I learned to shoot with, and yes, I had the same problem, under NJ law it was an "assault weapon"



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe in and support the Republicans now although I have in the past.

My take is that the subject of the second amendment is second on the list for a reason. The government should fear the people not the people fearing the government.

I would oppose and vote against those who do try to severely limit the second.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I tend to lean slightly to the left, however I take the Constitution very seriously! The right to bear arms is in the Constitution for a very good reason; to make it impossible for any government to enslave it's people as the British had basically enslaved the colonies. I would not support in any fashion the suspension of the second amendment for any reason! I also see it as virtually impossible for it to be repealed as that would require a 2/3rds majority of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures! Good luck on that one!!! In other words, never gonna happen! Nor should it ever be allowed to happen! General George has done enough in an attempt to flush the Constitution down the proverbial toilet! To quote the Democratic Candidate: ENOUGH!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I have for years voted for the most pro second amendment candidate available. Second amendment is the pristine question I vote from.
I use a candidates stance on the second amendment as a guage to determine if he/she sees me as a CITIZEN or SUBJECT.

I did not go to a government class, or get a government permit to attend church on Sundays.

I do not need trained on how to exercize my freedom of speech.

Do not need to pay a $115.00 fee to be permitted to redress grievances.

Do not have to have a check on my mental stability or substance use to vote.

Do not have to have a background check to prevent me from pleading the fifth amendment.

Do not have to get fingerprinted to go to an assembly of peers.

The second amendment is already being infringed upon. Those absurd infringements postulated above on other rights in the Bill of Rights make no sense. So how does anyone talking out of both sides of their mouth say "I am thinking we need certain restrictions on gun ownership, but...I support the second amendment."

I am just baffled at the incongruence of the thinking that supports comments like that.

The teeth are being pulled slowly and surely on the second amendment. As soon as it is toothless then none of the rest of the constitution or the bill of rights is worth the paper they are written upon.

I apologize for the excess verbosity.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Spoodily
 


They can severely limit it or render it toothless via the Supreme Court. And given that the next POTUS will have one or maybe two SCOTUS appointments to make, it makes for a very scary scenario indeed.

Once the Second Amendment is hobbled, the next to go will be the First Amendment, through the Fairness Doctrine.



Ummmm, that's why we have guns. Not going to happen. If someone says "Hey, give me your guns!" you say "I have a right given to be by our founding fathersto possess these weapons! Now get off my lawn or I will start shooting!" This only applies if you are not a felon or mentally unstable.


This also might seem suprising but you can actually make a gun. They don't grow on magical gun trees so if you really want a gun you can have one fabricated that will shoot fully automatically if you choose. All you need is metal and some tools. They teach how to do this in schools, maybe not guns but fabricating metal and machine work is a common trade for automotive work.

Don't be sad if all the gun makers close their doors. There were smart people that invented guns from scratch and improved them over time. With the knowledge available to us now it should be no problem to replicate. It's not like you're trying to build an iPod.




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 



Originally posted by Spoodily
Ummmm, that's why we have guns. Not going to happen. If someone says "Hey, give me your guns!" you say "I have a right given to be by our founding fathersto possess these weapons! Now get off my lawn or I will start shooting!" This only applies if you are not a felon or mentally unstable.


They don't have to take your guns. Just make it impossible to get new ones. Over time, attrition will take it's toll on existing guns.

They won't get my guns - they aren't registered, and nobody but me knows how many I have. I'm sure that is the case with many people.



This also might seem suprising but you can actually make a gun. They don't grow on magical gun trees so if you really want a gun you can have one fabricated that will shoot fully automatically if you choose.


You're talking to a person who made zip guns when he was 12 years old. And I didn't need to have it fabricated.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   
I am no republican but and the only people I ever hear talking about gun rights being taken away are republicans. It seems to me that the democrats have a long list of things to do and that one has to be pretty far down since it never comes up.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I am not talking about a little POS zip gun. I am talking about making real, quality guns. The bottom line is, no one is going to take away a responsible citizen's weapons. It is a guaranteed right.



[edit on 10/19/2008 by Spoodily]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


It is not a "guaranteed" right.
It is an "inalienable" right.



Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights) are rights conveyed by a particular legal or political entity, rights as enshrined in law, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.


The erosion occurs when an inalienable right "To keep and bear arms..." begins to be treated like a legal or guaranteed right.
For instance
You are guaranteed, leagally able to, permitted, allowed, licensed, "deemed responsible enough", instructed enough,, to be able to carry, posseess, keep, bear a weapons if:
a. you pass a background check.
b. you pay $xxx.xx dollars.
c. you do not have a history of substance abuse.
d. you do not have a history of violence.
e. you submit to fingerprint process.
f. you can vocalize the correct reason for wanting the weapon.
g. you get the idea between inalienable right and legal right and discern what is happening to the inalienable right to "keep and bear arms?"
If you do not understand the difference between inalienable right and legal or civil right then this link might help:
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 19-10-2008 by fmcanarney]




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join