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.

 

Abortion and Gay Marriage for Gun Rights and the Death Penalty

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
An interesting query I came across. Though in jest, I wondered what the opinions of it would be on a more serious website.



Originally posted by Stig
We need the party leaders to get together and strike a bargain: Dems stop worrying about the guns and the death penalty, and they can have the gay marriage and abortions.

Whaddaya say?


Wackbag

There are many political hardliners on here, and I'd really like to know just how important your ideologies are. If there were a nationwide proposition offered that was based upon radical compromise, could you vote for it?

It would include:

- All semiautomatic weapons are legal. The acquisition of firearms and ammunition cannot be infringed upon for a non-felon citizen. Ammunition designed to circumvent body armor would still be illegal

- The death penalty would be a mandatory sentence for all first degree murder convictions. The appeals process in these cases cannot take more than 6 months, and afterwards the execution cannot take more than 6 months. DAs would still be able to dangle life sentences in plea bargains.

- Abortion, as it stands now due to Roe v. Wade, remains legal and unfettered in all trimesters and cannot be challenged in the future.

- Homosexuals have an equal legal right to marry, though the government will not force religious institutions to carry out homosexual marriage just as the government now cannot force a religious institution to carry out a heterosexual marriage.

If this were passed it would immediately force politics to focus on larger, more complicated issues that aren't easily dealt with using sound bites.

I myself sit here and keep coming back to the death penalty one. Although I agree that murderers should pay the ultimate price, what if I were wrongly convicted of first degree murder. Imagine the terror of knowing that your death is imminent.

Food for thought...

I'm on vacation




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I like it.

Someone fax this to every politician!




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

- All semiautomatic weapons are legal. The acquisition of firearms and ammunition cannot be infringed upon for a non-felon citizen. Ammunition designed to circumvent body armor would still be illegal.


So the legitimately owned full auto firearms suddenly become illegal? I'm not cool with that.

Once time is served hasnt the debt been paid? If they are to be treated like criminals the rest of their lives we may as well just keep them in prison.

So my .308 or .30-06 that could blow through a low level vest is now illegal? What about arrows and knives? They go through vests with ease.

In theory it sounds nice and rainbows and stuff to compromise but this, at least the firearms part, seems to be born out of ignorance. Not to mention there's the whole "shall not be infringed" thing.

As far as anything else goes I dont care. Put criminals to death, abort until the age of 10, marry 35 goats a cat and six dudes for all I care. Just keep your hands off my guns. No compromise.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn



An interesting query I came across. Though in jest, I wondered what the opinions of it would be on a more serious website.


Interesting, indeed.....


There are many political hardliners on here,...


THAT'S an understatement!!


...based upon radical compromise, could you vote for it?


Well, hard to find a consensus but let's see:



It would include:

- All semiautomatic weapons are legal. The acquisition of firearms and ammunition cannot be infringed upon for a non-felon citizen. Ammunition designed to circumvent body armor would still be illegal


I can deal with that....except, all semiautomatic weapons is a little broad. Does it include machine guns???


- The death penalty would be a mandatory sentence for all first degree murder convictions. The appeals process in these cases cannot take more than 6 months, and afterwards the execution cannot take more than 6 months. DAs would still be able to dangle life sentences in plea bargains.


Modern DNA advances and technology MUST be taken into consideration. Dontcha think?? Fast-tracking the appeals (always mandatory in DP cases) is great, but still....

Here's what's needed, though...IMO. A better way to 'execute', if you wish to impose the DP. Our pets are "Put To Sleep" in a more Humane way than most human prisoners on Death Row.....


- Abortion, as it stands now due to Roe v. Wade, remains legal and unfettered in all trimesters and cannot be challenged in the future.


While I stand for the Woman's right to choose -- "all trimesters"??? Let's re-think that one, please....not based on pseudo-religious dogma, but on historically shown viability of 'premmies'....how very pre-mature births can, through modern medical science, by nurtured to full life.


- Homosexuals have an equal legal right to marry, though the government will not force religious institutions to carry out homosexual marriage just as the government now cannot force a religious institution to carry out a heterosexual marriage.


Absolutely with you on this one....still cannot see the "defense of marriage" morons' point, here....the is NO WAY a loving Gay couple threatens any other marriage, no way, shape or form.



I myself sit here and keep coming back to the death penalty one. Although I agree that murderers should pay the ultimate price, what if I were wrongly convicted of first degree murder.


See my point up above. I agree with you here.

We sometimes feel that "an eye for eye" should be the rule -- and when emotions are allowed to influence our reflections on the subject, it seems the 'right' thing to do, at the time. Again, it comes down to what is more of a punishment?? Death to one who is convicted of murder? Or, a remaining lifetime, for the convicted, of abject suffering and misery??

Either way, the State is complicit in inflicting some sort of punishment.

There are some schools of thought that would say the 'easy out' is the Death Penalty, since the convicted one will suddenly be "relieved" of all suffering....but, this goes well beyond the OP's original point....just food for thought, eh???



I'm on vacation


Jealous, I am...


These are great ideas, and the intent is well-thought out. Perhaps, in some future Utopia??

Enjoy your Holiday!!!

WW



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Machineguns aren't semi-automatic.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


OH!!

OK,


Shows how much I know about guns!

Guess, a 'machine gun' would be best called 'automatic'?

Just askin'...like, AK-47, and the like? An 'UZI'?

Perhaps the entire US Congress could take lessons....well, 'Google' is your friend, in this. I will be attempting to learn.

Thanks for your post!



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Agree with your and most of the OP's well-stated points. I also have a problem will "all trimesters".

And........ as thisguy said, when you say "machine gun", I believe you're referring to full-auto, as opposed to semi-auto, which is a trigger pull for each round fired. I think we need to get rid of intentionally smushy terms such as "assault weapon". There's a junk drawer there -- a catchall. Every weapon, including my pocket knife and, well, even my keyboard could be an assault weapon if used in an assault. I think that particular term was coined to demonize semi-auto firearms that have that certain "skeery" military look, but are otherwise no better nor worse than other "nonskeery-looking" firearms.

For me, the gay marriage/union issue is a no-brainer. I can't for the life of me figure out why it matters to anyone other than those wanting to have a legal union. It's simply none of my business, any more than anyone else's marriage. Everyone [in the U.S.] has a right to the pursuit of happiness [at least currently].

I think rather than a Dem/Rep negotiation, these EXISTING rights should be reaffirmed. Sort of like reaffirming one's wedding vows, only in this case it's the PEOPLE and their Constitution, their Bill of Rights, their existing freedoms.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Firearms terminology has become so convoluted anymore that even long time shooters of 50 + years like me get confused by the bureaucrats language as well as their understanding of same. Full-auto and Semi-auto always get people confused. With pistols its even more confusing. They call semi-auto pistols Automatics when they truly aren't!

Zindo



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I commend your effort for trying to find a compromise, but I don't think we should compromise for two reasons.

Guns are the law, and people have a right to them, dems can just shove it.

Gays are people to, and eventually even the most bigotted person is going to have to come to terms with that, and realize that this whole debate is just plain silly.

This shouln't be a "party" problem. It should be an American solution, brought on by the law, not the people or the politicians.

~Keeper



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed, AKs and others can be either full-auto or semi-auto. Some of them have the ability to be either; Most of what is sold legally in the AK line is semi-auto only. Their primary claim to fame IMO is their all-condition reliability --- they can handle all manner of abuse and carelessness and keep on firing. Reasonably accurate. Ugly.


I have only seen full-auto UZI's and they're really not my favorite, so I don't know much about them.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus

I have only seen full-auto UZI's and they're really not my favorite, so I don't know much about them.


Semi-auto UZI's are pretty popular. The UZI design is widely licensed.


For weedwhacker, I'm glad you are able and willing to admit ignorance on a subject and even happier you're willing to learn. If only the asshats in D.C. were so willing.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Thanks, Zindo, and Argent, and tothetenth....

Ironic, I didn't intend to speak for the OP....but, since he's on vacation!!!


I think when he comes in to see the thread he has sown, he will find good seeds here....nice to see great comments.

As I've indicated, when it comes to ownership of guns....that is an area I will not comment on, since I have no experience there. I appreciate the information, though.

PS -- My father and step-father both worked in law-enforcement, so I'm not entirely ignorant. Just inexperienced. 'Nuf said....

OK, Carry on!!



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

- All semiautomatic weapons are legal. The acquisition of firearms and ammunition cannot be infringed upon for a non-felon citizen. Ammunition designed to circumvent body armor would still be illegal.


So the legitimately owned full auto firearms suddenly become illegal? I'm not cool with that.


Good, point. I, being a New Yorker, simply assumed all fully automatic weapons illegal, and that there was no hope. Very well then.



Once time is served hasnt the debt been paid? If they are to be treated like criminals the rest of their lives we may as well just keep them in prison.

Excellent point. Then can we modify the deal?
IF YOU ARE A FELON DUE TO ANY FIREARMS CHARGE



So my .308 or .30-06 that could blow through a low level vest is now illegal? What about arrows and knives? They go through vests with ease.

Hmmm... all states seem to have different laws regarding this.
Perhaps the aforementioned compromise should legalize all nonexplosive ammunition and all automatic weapons, but treat all murders committed with a firearm as a first degree, and therefore capital, offense.



In theory it sounds nice and rainbows and stuff to compromise but this, at least the firearms part, seems to be born out of ignorance. Not to mention there's the whole "shall not be infringed" thing.

Why do you think I brought it here? To discuss. I know all of jack about guns except that I want a shotgun to protect my home from "invaders." (we get those in New York suburbs, it comes from the living so close to an urban area). If you started a thread on pro-tools and music production I wouldn't stomp all up in it yellin' bout ignorance.

And I think "shall not be infringed" is damn important. Right now we have strange ammo regulation that's being discussed and interestingly enough I've seen no mainstream coverage. This could technically infringe firearm rights without technically banning anything. We always need to protect ourselves from legal loopholes.

Here's an example, Don Imus had his right to free speech infringed upon by threat of a "boycott" and his employers caved in. He NEVER violated the FCC. I think legally Imus should have been prevented from being taken off of the air due to boycott threats. The only legal way to get him off of the air would be a contract violation. That would mean CBS and NBC (pretty sure he was on both) would have to wait to see if the boycotts affect Imus's bottom line (which they wouldn't have) before a termination, because I'm pretty sure that there are clauses in radio contracts that allow for termination due to poor performance.


As far as anything else goes I dont care. Put criminals to death, abort until the age of 10, marry 35 goats a cat and six dudes for all I care. Just keep your hands off my guns. No compromise.


So in other words, as long as your guns aren't touched you'd be free to vote for the guy that seems to make the most sense, and not automatically for the guy with the R next to his name. That's where I'm going with this...
I think.

I have some tennis to attend to, and later I'll be working on some music...

on my vacation.

Yuck



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I say hell yeah baby! w00t! I've been waiting for the legalization of semi's..........*dreamy*



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackieps1975
I say hell yeah baby! w00t! I've been waiting for the legalization of semi's..........*dreamy*


Semis are legal, well, even in New York.

Now we're discussing a repeal of the Gun Control Act and legalizing full automatics, but at the price of any gun murder being first degree, just like how murdering a police officer is automatically considered first degree.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Sunsetspawn
 


You, being from NY. are dealing with the old Sullivan Act. That law states that any firearm that can fire ammunition that can also be fired from any machine gun is illegal. That in turn means any firearm that uses this ammunition is also illegal. It's a draconian law that has been on the books in NY since the Volsted act and it should be repealed. It is legal in many states to own machine guns. It takes a special stamp from the ATFE and in doing so, you give the Feds the right to inspect your home at any time they choose unannounced. It also applys to silencers!

Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join