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 marg6043
The only reason the supreme court voted in favor of guns is because even when we make fun of the supreme court members and we call them all kind of names they actually uphold the Constitution because that is their job.
So I was expecting no less. . .
[edit on 28-6-2010 by marg6043]
Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by skeptic_al
Actually by being a part of the United States each state agrees to help the other in times of war. So if the federal government declares a state of war the individual states are seen to be in a state of war.
Actually if you can be at war with say Germany, you can be at war with a noun. Nouns are the abstract representation of something concrete and solid.
IS a war on terror possible? That is a whole other discussion.
All of that being said I was using these two definitions of the word state:
2. country: a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government
3. government: a country's government and those government-controlled institutions that are responsible for its internal administration and its relationships with other countries
The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.
California Penal Code section 12285(c)(7) requires that registered assault weapons may be transported only between specified locations and must be unloaded and in a locked container when transported.
The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device.
Originally posted by Sheol
The sheeple who were proclaiming and think "the gubmint gunna take our guns"! Hell no that ain't gonna happen eventhough it should.
Guns do not provide protection or defense whatsoever. They are completely offensive weapons. You can't deflect bullets or other weapons with a gun - that's done with a shield or some other type of defensive object. Guns are meant for killing, not defending.
If someone is running around with a machine gun, firing into a crowd, it doesn't matter if anyone in the crowd had a gun - they'll be shot and dead anyway. It did nothing to protect them. For protection, they would have to actually have foreknowledge that they would be shot by this person before it actually happened. Obviously, they won't know until after the person has started shooting.
Guns don't cause potential shooters to "think twice." If they want you dead, and they have a gun, they'll shoot you. The only way to possibly be protected is to just carry your gun around openly wherever you go for intimidation. But if that happens, intimidation will actually diminish. If everyone carries guns like it's a normal thing, why would anyone be scared? Plus, open-carry doesn't stop anyone from shooting, but would in fact make it easier to shoot someone.
If two people have guns, one "attacking" and one "defending," then unless the defender knows that the attacker is going to shoot him beforehand, he will most certainly be shot. The gun for "self-defense" does not work.
I find it increasingly hilarious that gun-nuts bring up ridiculous arguments about "dem guns protectin' dem studants in dem school shootangs".
Uh...you mean the murder-suicide shootings? Where the shooters deliberately killed people before committing suicide themselves.
Yeah, im sure the threat of getting shot back at is totally gonna deter them. Hahaha.