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.
Chicago is the Second City in nickname and the third in population, but when it comes to murder, the city has the dubious distinction of being second to no city in America
Originally posted by riggs2099 just because you ban one area does not mean that guns will not come from another.
Originally posted by star in a jar
Has anyone ever tried the "They stole my rifle from my house/ car while on a hunting stop/ backwoods cabin" line before?
I don't know what happens when you report your guns stolen, but once the day comes that they use registered addresses to go door to door confiscating guns or threatening penalties, etc for noncompliance, wouldn't you have documentation claiming that your guns were stolen and that they can just bugger off?
Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
Yeah, the accidental death argument is definitely a farce. According to the CDC, 789 people were accidentally killed with firearms in 2005, 616 of which were OVER the age of 20 (But think of the children!). The same year, 43,667 were killed in motor vehicle accidents (700 were bicyclists and another 4,917 were pedestrians), 19,656 died from accidental falls, 3,582 drowned, and 755 were killed by some type of machinery on the job.
Puts it in a little perspective, doesn't it?
Originally posted by RFBurns
Its just another means for government to create a way to collect more tax. That license will have a fee and tax attached to it. A perfect way to create another flow of income to help pay for those billions of dollars of bailout crook giveaway money.
Plain and simple.
It doesnt take away any rights whatsoever. It simply means that you need a license to own a gun, be registered etc. Not any different from owning a car, you have to register it, license it, and have a DL yourself in order to legally use it.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, states:
They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. "When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men."