Your gun rights were never under threat

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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?

These new handgun exspansions could be bait and switch. Just the other day AT says he was going to go after the gun show loop hole. Same ol from the Clinton years.

Anyway these new handgun deals dont mean anything to me when it comes to assult weapons. Bait and switch.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

That is absurd and totally ill informed (at best)

Southern Guardian is right.

Gun rights are written into the constitution as the 2nd amendment. As such they cannot be just taken away by a law. The process is long and involved requiring a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress followed by 2/3 majority's in the state legislatures of 2/3 of the states.

In short its not easy and its just not going to happen.

Reply to post by iMacFanatic

You're assuming a proper admendment process is necessary. Clintons AWB didn't require one. The AWB's of MA, NY, CA, CT, NJ and other states don't require an amendment to be made. The bans in Chicago and DC didn't require amendments though their status has changed and is about to change.

Finally, the ban being proposed right now in WA doesn't require an amendment.

You say I'm "ill informed." Have my life experiences tricked me? Was it just a big mistake on my part when Clintons AWB sent cops to my fathers door? Which one of the infringements I have experienced is not real? Which one is pure delusion leading to my status of "ill informed"?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

None of those take away your second amendment rights. They impose restrictions for sure but honestly who needs an assault rifle or needs to buy 20 guns at a time or can't wait to buy a gun? Also no city or state can take away an amendment right.

Who needs to take a gun into church or to a political rally?

The gun kooks have no sense of propriety. They think that they should be allowed to take them everywhere and that is not what the second amendment says.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

Reply to post by iMacFanatic

And now we know your real position. Thank you for being honest.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I have no problem with owning a gun and support the second amendment but the NRA and gun kooks are bat # crazy on this.

If guns are outlawed only the government will have guns and I don't want that but at the same time I expect a common sense approach to the matter as well and the gun nuts who seem to think it necessary to flaunt it as it were are using anything but common sense.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

reply to post by iMacFanatic


The problem is that the government, including the Supreme Court, have long since held that some regulations and restrictions on firearms can be implemented under the 2nd Amendment. Miller vs US established this quite well. Its pretty difficult to sit there and say that a ban on assault weapons, for instance, does not infringe upon the rights of an individual to own a particular type of firearm, an assault weapon.

SG is basically trying to say that all guns are the same, so it doesn't matter if you ban one classification. I suspect even he doesn't believe that. Its like saying that if there are two types of dogs in the world, Dobermans and Dachshunds, and you really want a Doberman, but if the government bans Dobermans, your rights have not been restricted because you can still own a dog. Doberman, Dachshund...they're all the same. Its a very poor logical argument and I think SG knows it.


[edit on 6-3-2010 by vor78]

The poster is not correct--The plan is to regulate the guns to a worthless state--HE states they are not going to take our gun rights, well bull crap--tell that to a person who lives in chicago. HUH buddy , do they have gun rights??? can they own a pistol?? no!!! So you see the poster is wrong. For they have already taken guns from citizens of the usa. This is what they do , regulate till it is a useless weapon, or till it is actually illegal as in chicago . In chicago the pigs didnt want to do their real jobs [put there lives in harms way] so they made all pistols illegal, That way they didnt have to weed out the crook from the american, anybody with a gun is a criminal, simoly put. So we see that the system IS TRYING to get your gun!!!! And some of us will speak up whenever they try any-little thing as far as regulation. Keep a sharp eye out

reply to post by Southern Guardian



REALLY?

This is a joke, yeah? GCA 68? Clinton assault ban? Brady Bill? Various local prohibitions against ownership?

Lets just go all out and remind ourselves of the Katrina confiscations.

Friend, I hate to be rude but your post is either for trolling purposes or just incredibly blind.

Please address these points above and how they dont amount to attempt's at weapon seizure.

Originally posted by iMacFanatic
I have no problem with owning a gun and support the second amendment but the NRA and gun kooks are bat # crazy on this.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

Well they are not bat crazy and I suspect you know this. NRA is a representative political apparatus they get paid to bark at anything that moves. If they dont they lose cred. They are defending a constitutional right which is clear about infringement.....so if it moves....call your congressman or woman.

Gun rights are under constant threat. Just that they are not using the front door because they don't want shot.

Mis-education: Schools in their zeal of zero-tolerance can punish a student for drawing or saying the word gun. There was even a case I heard of where a teacher explained to a mother that her son was in time-out because he said G-U-N-S. The teacher spelled the word to the mother.

Mis-information: Gun death statistics are bandied about (often with different numbers for the same year) with no differential between accidents, criminal (murder), justifiable (defense), and intentional (suicide). The fact that felt that I would need to include brackets to clarify says much about misinformation.

Mis-representation: Katrina confiscations, state and local laws that clearly circumvent the Constitution see here for a detailed post in another thread

Mis-association: Virginia Tech, Columbine, Ft. Hood, and other spectacular shootings. That somehow these tragedies are only because people own guns. Not that irresponsible people had guns. Not that a responsible gun owner could have reduced the number of deaths if he could legally carry.

Mis-speak: Propaganda on the MSM, out of the mouths of politicians, anti-gun advocacy groups. I look to soon hear outrageous lies to be spewed forth that make anti-smokers look honest, like a victim of a third-hand shooting that died from hearing gunfire, to explain why a fat old man had a heart attack.

True, responsible gun control is not pulling the trigger when you could have. It is a conscious decision of not taking a bad or risky shot, leaving your round to go to an unintended target. The two-hand crap is bravado and the legislative kind is self-preservation from a person with a guilty conscience.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Ahabstar]

Seeing some fool strutting around with a gun on his side does not make me feel safer or think he is a good guy. Far from it.

The second amendment gives you the right to have a gun not to rub it in everybody else's faces which is exactly what you are doing...and I think that most sane people would agree with me.

reply to post by Logarock

No I don't know that.

I used to belong when their focus was primarily gun safety and education but along the way they became a right wing apparatus and fight even the most common sense laws like a waiting period and back ground checks.

I canceled my membership when they opposed the Brady bill and started slurring the man because of the bill in his name.

reply to post by iMacFanatic


And now were right back to where we were in that Starbucks thread. You thinking somebody else is thinking something or feeling some way. Hardly foundation for legislation or policy.

reply to post by iMacFanatic


Well it is politics to some degree just like taking a brain damaged man and making him the poster boy for gun supression. Its sad but the Mrs loss blured her already weak vision about the big picture. The whole Bradey bill was a sad day and an example of how personal pity was forged into a working political tool to work over a constitutional right and put law abiding citizens on a guilt trip.

And the boy scouts have training and saftey programs.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Gun rights are under constant threat. Just that they are not using the front door because they don't want shot.

Mis-education: Schools in their zeal of zero-tolerance can punish a student for drawing or saying the word gun. There was even a case I heard of where a teacher explained to a mother that her son was in time-out because he said G-U-N-S. The teacher spelled the word to the mother.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Ahabstar]

And any shrink will tell you that nagitive reinforcement like this is not good. It may end up having a manifestation in rebellion at some point.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Sir fear is the reaction of something that is fearful. You can't create fear you can only create the situation, and fear is the reaction.

Take your hands off the second amendment and we will stop fearing.

Do you even know how evil and disgusting of a person you are?

You try to minimize self defense instincts for your own political amusement. You are actually participating in the murders of the defenseless and you justify it in your little demented world.

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Do you even know how evil and disgusting of a person you are?

You try to minimize self defense instincts for your own political amusement. You are actually participating in the murders of the defenseless and you justify it in your little demented world.

Nonsense...utter and complete nonsense.

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.

This is exactly what they want us to think.

Please put the kool-aid down.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a very clear illustration of term association not being used very well.

So lets see, if they regulate something and restrict certain rights given by the Constitution, it's not a clear violation of the constitution? The constitution says one thing annnnnnnd they're doing the opposite. It's a clear violation of rights. The problem YOU'RE having is this idea that people don't need fully automatic weapons. Why? Is it because you think that there are people already around to protect us from any threats in which a fully automatic weapon would be rather useful? Last I checked, the 2nd amendment is basically around for three reason; for the individual citizen to protect himself from other citizens of the country, for the individual citizen to protect himself from exterior forces invading our country, and for the individual citizen to protect himself FROM THEY'RE GOVERNMENT.

Hmm, let us just think for a minute...If the government starts doing stuff that one would see as tyrannical....and people were fed up with it....and people were trying to change things....who is going to protect them from the government if the SHTF? Maybe....JUUUUUUUUUUUUUST maybe....this is why people don't want the assault weapon ban?


BUT WAIT A MINUTE, SILLY ME, HAHAHAHAHA, OUR GOVERNMENT IS PERFECT! THEY'RE BENEVOLENT OVERLORDS WHO HELP ME AND DO EVERYTHING I NEED! NO ONE WITH UNWARRANTED AUTHORITY IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY HAS EVER USED THEIR AUTHORITY TO HARM THOSE THEY HAD AUTHORITY OVER OR TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM. NEVER. NONE. ZIP. NADDA. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPENS. ESPECIALLY IN AMERICA WHERE GOD CHRISTENS ALL POLITICIANS WITH THE GOOD WILL OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR.


*facepalm*