It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by bknapple32

I'd say it's a pretty 'current' threat.

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. Source

From Obamas own platform on his website. He is running on a gun ban. It doesnt get much more 'they'll ban guns' than stating they'll ban guns.

This ones coming from the (R)'s though I should say the fake urban (R)'s who are (R)'s in name only. Sort of like Bush is.

If you want to start saying Obama supports the 2nd AS HE SEES IT then by all means go ahead but I'm getting quite tired of all of these 'pro-gun' Obama drones trying to sell me a hog marked as veal.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Once again. Skipping the parts that totally contradict your own argument. Perhaps you didnt fully read the stance... i'll help you out... Or you saw it, and left it out.

From baracks site..
brack obama

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them.

End the lies.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 07:54 AM
reply to post by bknapple32

I'm sorry, what lie?

Obama wants an AWB. Where's the lie? What he wants would make all but one of my rifles illegal and to make that last one standing legal I'd have to mutilate it to remove a bayonet lug.

So, what lie? Are you saying that phrase from his platform doesnt exist? Or he doesnt really mean what is written as his platform? So either I'm lying and the link I posted doesnt go anywhere or it goes to a fake page or he's lying and his platform is made up?

Which is it?

[bumper sticker slogan equivalent to "end the lies" here]

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:14 PM
You know perfectly well tat party platforms are written up by party flunkies, not the candidates themselves.

And like it or not, an AWB, as stupid as it is, does not "do away with the Second Amendment" anymore than Class III restrictions on full-automatics do...

I doubt we'll see a return of the federal AWB, simply because there is little enthusiasm for one. I suspect at this point quite a few Democrats would cross the aisle and oppose it - outside the big cities, it's political poison.

All largely irrelevant anyway - gun control and the Second are not the only issues at play in this election. While I'm not happy with Obama's gun control record, (neither do I put him in the "aggressive gun grabber" category) who am I voting for - the guy who I think is wrong on one issue or the guy who's wrong on everything else?

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by xmotex

And like it or not, an AWB, as stupid as it is, does not "do away with the Second Amendment" anymore than Class III restrictions on full-automatics do...

That goes right back to the 2nd Amendment - as he sees it. If the Obama-bots want to use that caveat when they claim he is pro-2nd I have no problem with it but they just pretend his anti-gun quotes and policies dont exist or that they are 'okay' because some nut labeled them as 'common sense' measures.

And this is the only issue I ever vote on. We can all thank 1994 for that.
This is the only issue that affects me. The economy can crumble, the rest of the world can hate our guts, oil can hit $10,000/barrel, everybody can be homeless, I dont particularly care. I'll get by just fine. When I get concerned in the affairs of government is when they start Fing with me personally. An AWB would do just that. Get these "flunkies" to drop it off their agenda and you can have Obama. If he stops Fing with my guns or my right to bear them I couldnt possibly care less what other garbage nonsense he or any other politician supports. Hell, I'll stay home on the 4th or spend the day at the range. Ill quit my job and live off of his universal welfare and everything as long as I can keep and bear what I want to.

For every (D) who wouldnt support an AWB like NH's governor or Montana's governor there are a slew of (R)'s like the fakes in CT who would jump at the chance to pass another AWB and who are pushing their own damn bill through to get another AWB going in case you missed that a few posts up.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 01:02 PM
Well as you might guess I disagree with the idea that the AWB is a "common sense" measure - it's downright idiotic IMO...

Then again, I just moved from NJ to CA, so I'm stuck with dumb state AWB's anyway. It doesn't affect me that much, the only guns I have that were affected were my M-1A, which I sold in PA, and the JC Higgins .22 I was talking about earlier, and a Chinese SKS with an AK mag adapter - which I also sold.

I can't afford any of those $1500 big black rifles anyway - man that stuff is expensive

My favorite rifles are my M-1 and my Egyptian FN-49 in 8mm Mauser, both of which are legal under the AWB, even if they are just as potentially lethal as anything that isn't

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by xmotex

I can't afford any of those $1500 big black rifles anyway - man that stuff is expensive

It can be but if you build it yourself you can save a ton. I just finished a nice competition rifle off of a $170 lower for less than an AWB ban legal Mini-14. Of course the quad rail upped the cost a little. One of the reasons I think Ruger was in support of the first AWB was because he knew his guns which were largely unaffected by the AWB could be sold at a premium just slightly less than the cost of purchasing a pre-ban AR.

Get out of hellholes like NJ and CA and all of the nice and fun stuff is significantly less expensive. Just one state South of me people are paying 4 times their value for pre-ban crap while in NH lowers float around $120 each.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 01:20 PM
The real issue here is what type of guns one is allowed to own and what Obama wants to limit. Obama does not want to ban all guns. He wants to ban assault rifles. Are assault weapons part of the second amendment? No one really knows, it is all opinion. There were no assault weapons when the amendment was made, so anyone categorically stating what the forefathers want is working only on conjecture.

Personally I think they that would not have wanted the common man to own such weapons. I think they would have been ok with "militias" or the sort owning them, as long as there was some control over their storage and access.

BTW I am an libirepublicrat. means I beleive parts of every parties platform.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity

Define Assault weapon please.

Semi auto matic rifles were not in existence when the Bill of Rights was written. Nor were revolvers, or pump shotguns, or semi auto shotguns, nor were .22-250, or .30-06, or .303, or 9mm, 6.5mm Jap x.257 Roberts Improved. .219 Zipper, .218 Mashburn Bee, .220 Swift.

The Bill of Rights was not written "for a common man" it was written by common men for common men.
Inalienable rights are not conferred, granted, permitted, not permitted, withheld, licensed or any other malarkey, they were written down so that they would not be usurped and infringed upon.

You think the Bill of Rights was written by "government" to grant rights to citizens?
The Bill of Rights was written by citizens, voted on by citizens, and ratified by citizens who had recently fought, many to death, to secure the rights they wrote down.
The right to keep and bear arms means what ever the current militia (military) is in possession of as far as weapons are concerned is what was being spoken to. These men knew that weaponry would evolve and progress, that is why they used the word "arms" to depict what the average soldier would be armed with.

There is no "common sense" infringement on the bill of rights second amendment.
Yes mentaly disability, addiction and certain felons are prohibited from any and all firearms purchases with the existing laws as I type this, and this is not infringing on the second amendment. It doen not infringe on the second amendment because it still permits all rational, reasonable law abiding citizens to exercize their second amendment.
It does however limit and restrict certain individuals ability to legally exercize their second amendment rights.
The individuals history of behavior and actions, crime, addiction or mental disabled is public knowledge.
A AWB in a blanket, prohibits everyone, law abiding, competent, temperate, inebriate, stupid and criminal, fron the second amendment and as such in an INFRINGEMENT on the second amendment.

Wrap your common sense around that please.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 01:09 AM

Originally posted by nyk537
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]

Honestly, it is on ASSAULT weapons. I have heard it is nothing on GUNS across the board, but of the more dangerous assault weapons. NOT hunting rifles, not typical slower rate-of-fire weapons. If they allow people to carry around assault rifles, then the Police would need mini-guns?

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 01:19 AM
The Senate and Congress know that if they want to keep working, they will not mess around with the Second Amendment. People will fire them. A new president may try to pass more gun laws but getting through the process is another story. Just like trying Alchohol prohibition or trying to overturn Roe V Wade, it would be political suicide.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by tommyb98201]

[edit on 26-10-2008 by tommyb98201]

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 08:39 AM
A lot of posters here think the second amendment is about "they wont take the guns away".

It is primairly about the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Infirngement =AWB, magazine capacity, how you can store and transport arms.

The preamble of the Bill of Rights is a declarative and restrictive statement.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by AdmiralX

What is an assault rifle?? Can it be described by a certain caliber? or rate of fire? or length of the barrel or stock..
or perhaps the materials that it is made of?..

Or is it defined by mere "appearence"
As I stated before under the old AWB I had a .22 caliber rifle that was then 80 years old, but was considered an assault rifle.. But the other 9 more powerful rifles I owned were not...

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in