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 ravenshadow13
Why is it that people get mad when states get their rights taken away and replaced by federal control with it comes to the amendments about most things, but when it comes to gun control, it's not okay for the states to decide?
I mean, I don't think she's right about this. I'm just making a general observation. Don't most people (not me) want MORE state control and less federal control?
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Don't most people (not me) want MORE state control and less federal control?
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
That's because of a human flaw. Humans are violent. I don't think they should have guns. It's just a cool weapon used to kill other people. If you really want to kill someone, you should battle it out the hard way with knives and rocks. Guns are too easy.
People never complain about how violent we are. They never complain about the fact that violence is generally an everyday thing and when someone is shot on the news, it's not a big deal.
People only speak up when someone wants to make sure they're qualified to handle a murder weapon.
Done with this thread.
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I don't see what the problem is. The Constitution is a Federal document. It was never intended to replace state constitutions. It says that Congress can't infringe upon a person's right to bear arms and that's different from a state attempting to do so.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by MemoryShock
And to feel so passionate about one aspect of self defense without consideration of others is a weakness I percieve...
Not saying you, GEN...I'm just saying...
Consideration of criminals? is that what you are concerned about?...
i guess according to you then people in general should not try to defend themselves because of the ideals of people like you about self defense...
Originally posted by Ahabstar
Can we please have a small test for all elected officials and appointed positions in this country that you must be able to read and comprehend the US Constitution before being considered for the job?
Figuratively and literally, justice wears a blindfold. It cannot be a respecter of persons. Everyone must stand equally before the law, black or white, rich or poor, advantaged or not.
Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The Second Amendment isn't just for you to protect your home, it's also to fight against an abusive government. You should actually try to understand the Constitution before making ignorant comments like these.
Originally posted by Blarney63
However, if I were to define "staunch" supporters of gun control, I would refer to those who create and lobby for laws designed to banish guns. As only one example, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 passed in the District of Columbia. This law banned certain handguns (except those owned prior to its enactment), automatic firearms and high capacity semi-automatic firearms. This law also mandated that all firearms in the privacy of one's own home must be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock." This law remained in placed and was enforced for over thirty years until the total ban and trigger lock provisions were struck down in the Heller case by the Supreme Court in 2008.
There should be no mistake here, the staunchest supporters for "gun control" want to get rid of guns altogether - it is to those people that I am referring to when I opine they are trying to circumvent the Constitution.
As for guns on the black market, I live in California just outside of Los Angeles. It is quite easy to get a gun here illegally. And it is usually less expensive than guns in the gun stores.
I recommend keeping your eyes on any judge, politician, or lobbying group that blatantly tries to avoid the ratification process by any purported federal law passed by Congress, regulation, or local law/ordinance. If one fundamental right goes, so may go the others.