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 ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by tommy_boy
Treason? You're reaching. Goes back to my previous point. Just because someone doesn't agree with your point does not make it a crime, Electric. It's the same argument bible freaks use. Your argument is too emotional, and even a bit radical.
Like it or not, right or wrong, her interpretation on this point has merit, and when there's merit, the person's agenda is irrelevant.
She is not disagreeing with "a point of view", she is blatantly disregarding one of the rights given to every American by the forefathers... Two different things, and my stance still stands, she is nothing more than a traitorous old hag, for wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment because of her "too high morals".
Originally posted by MemoryShock
the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."
Restricted is a much different term then "prohibited".
I certainly think that a citizens right to have the capacity to defend themselves and their homes does not translate into a free for all when it comes to gun ownership.
Seriously...there are very relevant reasons why ththe idea of restriction is a relevant topic. One cannot predict that all gun owners will demonstrate the responsibility necessary when keeping, storing and using a tool that has the potential to end life in a second.
I have known people that I wouldn't trust with a sharpened pencil much less a firearm...and in todays world of advanced technology it should be noted that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarentee the right of an individual to harbor the capacity to defend oneself with force if needed...not to hold a firearm for the sake of it.
A very relevant context, in my opinion...