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.

 

Your gun rights were never under threat

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

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"?


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?



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I'm just a bit on the fence regarding released felons and the second amendment. On one hand, I definitely don't believe that a violent felon should have access to a firearm once released from prison. But then, there's a dilemma. If this person has been released from prison, have they not paid their debt to society? If so, should they not have their rights restored in full? In both cases, I would be hard pressed to answer as anything but yes.

I ask this not so much because I'm in favor of restoring gun rights to violent criminals, I am not, but I do not know how to reconcile that with the principle that a person has repaid their debt to society. Perhaps they cannot be reconciled? I don't know.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   

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?


It did stop people from buying a class of weapon. That in itself is a restriction of gun rights.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
It did stop people from buying a class of weapon.


It didnt stop you from buying a gun to protect yourself.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


As long as people ay those games of semantics and rationalization the loss of our guns will always be a threat.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


That's only partially true. Again, it did prevent you from buying a particular classification of gun. If a person wanted to buy an 'assault rifle' and was unable to under the ban, their right to do has clearly been restricted. This seems rather clear.

The only way your argument works is if a person believes that all guns are equal. A gun is a gun is a gun. The problem is, if you believe that, then you also have to believe that if they ban one gun, they can ban another. Afterall, all guns are the same in your eyes. In essence, your argument actually supports the idea that a full firearms ban could develop from the AWB.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
As long as people ay those games of semantics and rationalization


The law didnt stop you from buying a gun. However the line between what is the right of arms in this nation is non-existent. Fact is, there will always be certain weapons that civilians cannot own, and we can argue in so many ways where our rights had been infringed.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


That's only partially true.


Its not partially true. If you wanted to get a gun to protect your family, you could do so without that law infringing on your rights.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


It IS only partially true. You could buy a gun, but you could not buy an assault rifle. Again, if a person wished to buy this classification of weapon, they would not be able to. Their right to do so would have been restricted.

Again, the only way you can argue otherwise is to say that all guns are the same. Is that what you are saying?

[edit on 5-3-2010 by vor78]



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Add these few more reasons:

(1) American perception, substantiated since the election, that Obama -- as no president before him -- holds a Socialist/Marxist/fascist (whatever one wants to call it) ideology. Add to this that he has indicated he will rush his agenda by executive orders when necessary.

(2) His voting record.

--He was named the #1 liberal in the US Senate...that's #1 among 100. (I could stop here, but will go on.)
--He voted against a bill that would endorse the natural right of citizens to use firearms in cases of self-defense (See State Senate record on this issue below).
--In 2000, in the US Senate, he cosponsored a bill (didn't pass) to limit handgun purchases to one per month.
--In IL where he served in the State Senate, in 2004, he voted against Senate Bill 2165, which would have endorsed citizens' right to defend themselves with handguns during home invasions.

(3) His own words:

--During the presidential primaries (Philadelphia, April 16, 2008), in a debate, he said the following:

"Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?

"A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

--During the primaries, in an interview with Politico (Feb 11, 2008), he said the following:

"Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

"A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions."

--During the primaries in a debate in Los Vegas (Jan 15, 2008), he said the following:

"Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

"A: I don’t think that we can get that done NOTE: didn't say he was against it.). But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."

--In a presidential primary forum before the NAACP (July 12, 2007), he said the folllowing:

"Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

"A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities. There aren’t any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now."

--On page 215 of his book Audacity of Hope, he wrote the following:

"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby."

--In 1999, as a State Senate candidate, he completed or authorized answers to a candidate questionnaire (Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois) as the following:

"35. Do you support state legislation to:
"a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
"b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
"c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes."

I'll end as I'm out of space.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

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.



Fear is a great motivator, unfortunately it is utilized most affectively by BOTH parties.
If your still playing the blame game, you might consider watching both parties engage in this foolishness.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

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?


By the very definition of the word, any gun law is an infringement.

Most notably, the National Firearms Act.

The Clinton AWB was an infringement, and it did restrict people from buying certain guns, whether you choose to believe it or not.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




The truth is civilians cannot own every single type of weapon in existence. The line is drawn.


How did that line get drawn and by who? It sure as hell wasn't drawn in the constitution or by the founding fathers.

Your statement clearly shows that guns have been restricted in this country when you say "The truth is civilians cannot own every single type of weapon in existence".

Our founding fathers intended that we have weapons that would protect us from our government. That means we should have access to weapons at least equal to the military.

So I guess you think the founding fathers thought we could keep the government in check by using pistols and hunting rifles to defend ourselves against machine guns, rpg's, tanks, jets, bombs, and on and on?

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


So, in a roundabout way, you're conceding that the AWB did in fact restrict the right of gun owners to purchase this classification of weapon. That's all you had to say. Still, why the reluctance to admit it? If the AWB did not restrict the right to own an assault weapon, why have an AWB?



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Falls under the 13th Amendment.

A person who commits and is convicted of a violent felony, has demonstrated that they have no regard for the rights of others. Why should society give them back rights when they are so willing to take those rights away from others? Sure, they may have paid their debt to society, but some things due to their actions, they will have lost forever.

I could really care less what gun a law abiding citizen owns. If they want to keep an RPG & launcher in their house, what do I care?



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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]


Sophomoric prattle ! There are at least a half dozen Congressmen who introduce or cosponsor anti-second Amendment legislation every session. 1968 > 2009. Some of the most obvious offenders.
Feinstein, Boxer, CHUCKY SCHUMER ( My Favorite ) , Levin, Lautenberg, Etc.

Yupper ! Those disinformation, " pundits " politicians and wacko Constitutional folks need not be concerned. < Sarcasm



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


A good point and one I'd considered right after typing the post. Certainly, a person who has committed a violent felony has forfeited certain rights through their actions. Again, I wasn't arguing that they should, but searching more for legal justification for removing that right.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

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.


Where did the government get the authority to own whatever weapon it chooses?

From the people of course.

The people cannot delegate a power they do not already have.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by brainwrek]



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
You have free speech but you are no longer allowed to say anything negative or insulting.
It's ok though because your still able to talk, you just have to say things that have been approved.


no infringement here what so ever, move along please...


Get serious man, infringement is infringement you can play games with technicalities all day long and it still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bare arms HAS been infringed.

The amendment is as follows


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.

not

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.


Just because the ban allowed certain firearms to still be owned does mean the constitution hasn't been violated, nor does it make such INFRINGEMENTS ok

Oh yeah just for fun, pay attention to the bold...


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.)


The amendment has a purpose and it's not simply for "personal defense" it's also for the defense of the state and the country, and you can't defend either from enemy forces with a pocket pistol, one needs

every other terrible implement of the soldier
for such actions.




So quit playing symantics

[edit on 5-3-2010 by C0le]




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join