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.
Originally posted by impressme
What happened to CHANGE?
Um.. No?
You honestly think a shotgun firing a solid rubber slug shoots with equivalent force to a paintball gun that shoots breakable projectiles at 300fps?
Have you ever played paintball? Have you ever fired a shotgun?
If the answer to both of those is "yes", then I have no idea how you could draw such a conclusion.
Originally posted by Animal
Cool, I am okay with that, buy I will not budge on making sure there is a balance between your freedom to carry a gun and my freedom to live without the fear of being killed by a gun.
Originally posted by Hawkwind.
Can I ask everyone who owns a gun, would you object to having to use only a gun that used rubber bullets? Bear in mind that these bullets will take down a person virtually as effectively as real traditional ammo? Or is it all about the kill?
Originally posted by LostSailor
Originally posted by Animal
Cool, I am okay with that, buy I will not budge on making sure there is a balance between your freedom to carry a gun and my freedom to live without the fear of being killed by a gun.
There in lies the dilemma. You will never be able to live without a fear of being killed by a gun. Even if they pass all the gun restrictions in the world. Some sickos out there will still have some guns. Don't you mess with my right to defend myself and my family because you were to scared to take the time to learn how to safely, competently, efficiently use a criminal activity deterrent device.
You go ahead and put your faith in the government. See how far that gets you...
SIMONE: As long as I've been going to the U.N., I've heard critics and representatives from some countries say they'll wait as long as they have to in order to get the right person in the White House to move forward with their arms trade treaty. Is Barack Obama the right guy?
BOLTON: I think it's just as you say—people in the U.N. system, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOS), basically concluded they weren't going to get anything through while Bush was president. So they've been waiting, they've been holding back, and it's precisely what they've been waiting for—the right guy to get in the White House. I think they believe they have found him. And that's why I think groups that care about Second Amendment rights—groups like the NRA and all of its members—really have to pay very close attention to what's going on in the State Department and New York for the next four years. In a diplomatic world, a lot takes place below the radar screen. You don't see it until it's essentially a done deal, when it's much harder to oppose.
SIMONE: When you logged onto IANSA's (International Action Network on Small Arms) website right after the election, there was a picture of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and that organization couldn't say enough about what this election means for moving forward with an arms trade treaty. Shouldn't that concern every gun owner in this country?
BOLTON: Absolutely. Nobody should be under any misimpression that these discussions are about preventing small arms and light weapons from going into conflict zones. That's a concern the United States properly has, particularly when its soldiers are deployed. That's a problem that can be dealt with. The hidden agenda, in fact it's not so hidden to many of these groups, is not weapons flowing to conflict zones. It's imposing their domestic agenda, particularly on the United States, to get gun laws enacted here in ways they couldn't possibly be successful in doing in Congress. They'd much rather lobby the U.N. than our own Congress.
SIMONE: And you hear Oxfam and iansa say time and time again, "This is not about civilian ownership, we are not out to get the Second Amendment." But you don't have any doubt that's what they are after?
BOLTON: There is no doubt. And they may not use phrases that we would understand. That's part of the problem with "diplo-speak," you can conceal a lot more than you reveal by the words you use. But that's why these ngos have been so active for so long. They see going outside the American constitutional system as the best way to advance their agenda.
I have problems with guns specifically designed to kill PEOPLE.
Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Animal
What guns are you referring to that are specifically designed to kill people.
All guns are designed to kill. I can take a rifle that was meant to kill deer and kill someone with it. I can also take an assault rifle and kill a deer with it.
Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by maybereal11
Total non-sequiturs! If the borders were closed and protected, there would be no gun running. Colt has a right to market its guns to anyone it wishes. There is no law prohibiting it.
Just close the border? What do youhave in mind? A wall? How high? How long? Barbed wire? And then there will be no gun running? Really?
Originally posted by GunzCoty
So crime will increase with robbery as well as other crimes. And yes we Americans will not be able to stop the government from turning the USA into a 3erd world country or a Nazi one.All the freedom we have will be taking away if we sit there and do nothing.
Your Individual Right
To Keep And Bear Arms
The states' rights reading [of the Second Amendment] puts great weight on the word "militia," but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states." As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means "states," it says so. Thus, as noted above, "the people" at the core of the Second Amendment are the same "people" at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely Citizens.
"The people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") . . . . While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
The misconstruction of
United States v. Miller
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
WHAT TO DO IF THE POLICE COME TO
CONFISCATE YOUR MILITIA WEAPONS.
The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police want to search your house without your consent, they need a warrant. Warrants may only be issued upon a showing of probable cause, supported by an affidavit. The facts contained in the affidavit must do more than support a mere suspicion. The test is whether the information in the affidavit would justify a person of prudence and caution in believing that an offense is being committed, e.g. that "prohibited" weapons can be found on your premises. The requirement of probable cause for the issuance of warrants is one of your most precious constitutional protections. NEVER GIVE THE AUTHORITIES YOUR CONSENT TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR ANY OTHER PREMISES UNDER YOUR CONTROL. Consent dispenses with the necessity of probable cause. While lacking probable cause, if the police conduct a search with your consent and seize evidence for use against you in court, your lawyer will not be able to suppress it on the basis that the search was warrantless.
Originally posted by impressme
What happened to CHANGE? I did not expect this from Obama, I have to believe the shadow government that was behind George Bush, and his administration is still in power and pulling Obama strings. If the CIFTA treaty is ratified, then I could see a huge protest against this administration. For a long time our government has been looking for an excuses to squash the second amendment, so they will have the power to stop any militia from forming or to overthrow a corrupt government. This is what this CHANGE is all about.
www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
CONCERNED by the increase, at the international level, in the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials and by the serious problems resulting therefrom;
REAFFIRMING that States Parties give priority to preventing, combating, and eradicating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials because of the links of such activities with drug trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and mercenary and other criminal activities;
******SKIP******
Article I
Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:
a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or
b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or
c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.
******SKIP******
Article II
Purpose
The purpose of this Convention is:
to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;
to promote and facilitate cooperation and exchange of information and experience among States Parties to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.
il⋅lic⋅it
/ɪˈlɪsɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-lis-it] Show IPA
–adjective
1. not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful.