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 brainwrek
reply to post by Southern Guardian
I'll ask once more: Do you know the definition of "shall not be infringed"?
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
It does to me. While the AWB law did little to nothing to change gun violence in this nation, the law itself never stopped you from owning guns. Tell me, did the law prevent you from buying a gun?
Originally posted by vor78
It did stop people from buying a class of weapon.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
As long as people ay those games of semantics and rationalization
Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Southern Guardian
That's only partially true.
Originally posted by whatukno
Because FEAR is the RNC platform.
FEAR turns voters to the GOP so that they can be protected.
FEAR gets votes, FEAR is the game the GOP is playing.
Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Southern Guardian
It IS only partially true. You could buy a gun, but you could not buy an assault rifle.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I know the definition. Have your rights being infringed? Or did you just completely ignore the deregulation of gun laws going on? Do you wish to think your rights are being infringed under this administration?
The truth is civilians cannot own every single type of weapon in existence. The line is drawn.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Your guns were never under threat and the pundits and politicians know this. Many citizens know this already, but this excuse of some threat is a great way smear, mislead and spread disinformation to the public.
[edit on 5-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
It IS only partially true. You could buy a gun, but you could not buy an assault rifle.
I could argue you that is only partially true that I have gun rights as I cannot buy every single weapon out there. Its an argument that you cannot make exceptions on. The truth is civilians cannot own every single type of weapon in existence. The line is drawn.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms can be infringed only to the point where the citizens of the united states can only purchase, own, and possess sub caliber pee shooters incapable of national defense.and its ok because as long as these pee shooters are still legal then this amendment hasn't been violated.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. (Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. (Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).)
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...(George Mason)
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. (Zacharia Johnson)
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (The Virginia delegation)
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
(Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.)
for such actions.
every other terrible implement of the soldier