It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
They were addressing all bearable arms. From a nail in a board to the unimaginable brain-melting death ray.
I guess you havent actually read the Amendment?
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.
Because to remain free we need a militia the right of everyone to have and hold their guns shall not be F*ed with. It doesnt say anythig at all about "regulating" the people or their guns.
First, although the 2nd Amendment did create a personal right to “keep and bear arms,” it did so only insofar as private arms were needed to maintain a citizen militia. The basis for the right is the collective, republican concept of the citizen militia, and the primary objective of enshrining the militia in the Bill of Rights was to guard against the dangers of a standing professional army. Moreover, the phrase “keep and bear arms” had distinctly military connotations leading up to and including the founding era, and there is remarkably little evidence of an individualist right to possess guns, even in the anti-federalist literature. However, the authors do not entirely eschew the individualist interpretation of the Amendment; the “right of the people” was, they believe, intended to vest the ownership and possession of arms in the potential militia members—(white male) citizens.
Second, because the citizen militia withered away as an institution long ago and has no contemporary successor, the conditions for the right to keep and bear arms, even as an individualist right, no longer exists. The local militia was already giving way to the vastly superior – in terms of training, preparedness and fighting ability – professional army at the time of the Revolution. State militia were replaced by volunteer state guard and, eventually, National Guard units, that were gradually co-opted by the national military. Today, the National Guard is equipped by the government and in virtually all respects serves as an adjunct to the professional army. Nor are there any other plausible substitutes for the extinct citizen militia that would serve to animate the 2nd Amendment.
I'll say the same thing I say to everyone who pulls the "utopia" card: Get your head out of your ass.
Originally posted by n1zzzn
reply to post by j2000
I'm not saying we need to execute our government officials here. I am saying that ALL Americans, regardless of pro-control or pro-rights NEED to see what is actually happening here.
It might be only on the table with firearms now.. but eventually it WILL effect something that you believe in the right for.
Originally posted by n1zzzn
Originally posted by nenothtu
Does that mean that if I pay the $200.00 "transfer" tax I can buy one?
I'd like to reference the "Deny Ignorance" motto from ATS and emplore you to do some research before making a comment such as the above
Originally posted by Beaux
So, no limits on arms. May I have a tank to drive to work? Maybe build a nuclear device in my basement? How about a machine gun nest in my front yard?
Is this OK?
Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by C0le
Actually, to generate money for the state. NK, I mean, NJ, already has a requirement of a Firearms ID card to purchase a shotgun or rifle. To purchase a handgun, you must have a Firearms ID card, then apply for a handgun permit. This permit is good for one handgun, and the permit expires within 6 months if not used. You must be 21 for a handgun, so I've never applied for that (not 21). But I have my Firearms ID card, and that bad boy costed me like 60-70 dollars in fees.
In response to your calls, faxes, and emails, the New Jersey Assembly on November 17 delayed passage of A2116 (banning most firearms of .50 caliber or larger) and instead amended the legislation in an attempt to respond to gun owner concerns. The amended bill could be considered by the full Assembly as soon as December.
In a surprise move last night, the New Jersey State Senate declined to take up scheduled action on S1774, so-called "one-gun-a-month" legislation.
After months of high profile lobbying by anti-gun organizations and bill proponents, and on the heels of last Monday's victory by anti-gunners in the Senate Committee on Law and Public Safety, S1774 was abruptly pulled.
While this legislation will remain in a position to be posted for a vote by the full Senate for the rest of the 13 months remaining in the term, this development can only indicate a softening of support for this dangerous bill. Overwhelming effort on the part of the grassroots networks of a variety of gun rights groups in New Jersey must be credited with this apparent reversal of fortune for the anti-gun crowd.
This bill will remain alive for all of 2009 and must remain at the top of the agenda for all New Jersey gun owners. Please continue to stay in touch with your legislators about the dangers of this legislation and watch closely for any developments. Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for any updates. You can find contact information for your State Legislators by clicking here.
Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum
reply to post by nenothtu
This Beaux person is simply another agent provocateur here to misdirect and baffle posters with BS. The time is nearer than we know to implement an actual Constitutional Republic. These lawyers, land barons, corporations, career politicians and unsavory individuals that comprise our congress have to be weeded out or we simply need to clean house and start fresh. Several members here hate freedom and it is easy to see that they loath the unalienable rights afforded to Americans and want socialism rather than freedom.
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
My opinion- I personally don't want any felons or illegal immigrants to have guns, for my own safety. I mean, it does make sense, we don't want the crazy murders to be able to have them. If you want a gun for the right reasons, then this shouldn't affect you.
We want a militia, not more mass murders, right?
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. - George Washington
Originally posted by Beaux
I might have suggested a bow if he was bored. I agree that the 2nd Amendment is about tyranny. Do you agree that the "well armed militia" the amendment addresses only had swords, muskets and flintlocks?
Some mentioned that the Constitution does not say anything about cars (because they did not exist). It also says nothing about automatic weapons, tanks, submarines or nuclear weapons. Considering that they are also considered 'arms', should we be allowed to own them too? I would feel a lot safer if I had an M1A1 Abrams at the house that I could drive to work.
That is a strawman argument. A car is a mode of transport, a gun is a weapon. Are you saying that if I leave a loaded gun on my table and a 5 year old from next door finds it and blows his head off, that it was OK?
If...has it happened? Most police officers have never fired their weapon off the firing range and face more criminals in a month than most of us will see in a lifetime. I know you want to protect your own but realistically, that bat will probably be the only thing you will ever need. And if not, use the shotgun.
If I have to use a gun to protect my life, liberty or property, then I am afraid because I am living in the wrong neighborhood or the wrong country.
How exactly does it infringe on your rights? If you are a law abiding citizen and have every right to own a gun how does it infringe on your right at all. Does it stop you from getting a gun or does it inconvenience you?
Inconvenience is not infringement. If you already have the right to own a gun a piece of paper does not infringe on that right, it might slow you down a few minutes but it does not infringe on your right to own a firearm.
Nothing in this bill says anything limiting your right to own a gun, all it does is make it possible for law enforcement to try and get guns out of the hands of criminals. If you aren't a criminal and go through the paperwork to buy your gun then you have nothing to worry about and in fact are more protected.
I mean some people think that any legislation on gun ownership is an infringement. One cannot buy a ICBM for instance. Is that constitutional? If we were to go by the strict letter of the constitution then no it isn't constitutional. I as a law abiding American should have the right to buy and keep a ICBM because the constitution protects it.
However does that make any sense? Should I the average American law abiding citizen be allowed to have a nuclear weapon? The same goes with assault rifles. The use of which is not necessary against anything but humans. Some reasonable limits have to be arranged.
Filling out a form is mearly a formality for the law abiding citizen not an infringement.
Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
Do you think that felons are buying guns legally?
Briton has had a 40+% increase in crime since they outlawed firearms.
Overall firearms offences, including air guns, fell 14% in 2006-07 from 21,527 incidents to 18,489.
Of course we could start a whole new thread with the death sentence as technically it is a violation of the the declaration of Independence, "...unalienable right to "LIFE", liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Unalienable means absolute, absolute means it cannot be taken away no matter what, so technically the death sentence (although I support it) is a violation of the declaration of Independence
Originally posted by hotrodturbo7
Not everyone can afford to live in the suburbs with a high cop/citizen ratio and lightning fast response times. But almost anyone can afford a $150 used shotgun. Might have saved some lives in this case.
wife and daughters of doctor robbed, raped and burned
Guess that wealthy doctor should have chosen a better neighborhood.