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.

 

Think the feds are taking your guns? Think again! This just in!

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ReVoLuTiOn76
 
meh, I guess I see you point, makes sense.



But I just think there a little TOO much for the general public to handle, things could get out of control in my opinion easier with automatic weapons, I just don't think there necessary to defend yourself, and I think there is a high possibility that they would be misused if given to the general public easier then say a hand gun, and as far as what an assault gun is to me en.wikipedia.org...

After reading the link I posted above I have decided it would be acceptable for the general public to own assult rifles, from my ignorant perspective they don't seem as bad for potential misuse and as powerful as a full automatic.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
It is well that this passed the Supreme Court, but I am more than disturbed by the 5-4 ruling.

That tells me that there are 4 Supreme Court Justices that need to be immediately removed from the bench for failure to consider, nay comprehend, the US Constitution on the most elementary of levels.

Every single amendment of the Bill of Rights directly and specifically states either the People or Individual. Every single one of them. But don't just take my word for it. Examine them for yourself.

The 10th does not apply in this case because the 2nd already clearly states that is a right of the people, that shall not be infringed, to keep and bear arms. The 10th only allows states to have power of things that are not the providence of the federal government and not an area where the people have domain and authority by individual choice.

I will stop here before this becomes and essay. However, it is my opinion that that four Supreme Court Justices need to read over Article 6 before being shown the door. Least that the door shown becomes that of jail cell in a Federal Prison. In fact, far more than the justices need shown the door, but that is a different subject.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


First of all, what do you consider an "assault weapon"? There is no such thing as an "assault weapon", there are only rifles. Secondly what is wrong with the public owning automatic weapons? If I pay my taxes, and don't break the law, why should it not be my right, as reserved in the constitution, to own an automatic weapon? The answer is I should be able to. Remember one thing: Gun control is only about control.


This concern is precisely true in my opinion. The definition of "assault weapons" in the United States is variable and easily manipulated as it currently stands. What needs to happen is a regulatory framework such as the ATF licensing of machine guns needs to be put in place across all states. If you have a legitimate rationale for owning a machine gun, and you are competent and not a felon, I see no reason you should be unable to own one.

Now I'd like to make it clear I am not at all advocating being able to mount a Browning machine gun to your SUV here, I'm talking about people whom collect period weapons or are otherwise wishing to have such a weapon for reasonable reasons.

I knew a former United States Army officer whom was stationed in Alaska for a year, he lived in a remote part of the state and as a matter of safety carried his M4 with him when out around his place, not because of fear of other people but because there were a lot of dangerous wild animals in the area. That's perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

What does worry me is the nutters, the paranoid or angry whom will amass arsenals specifically to fight the government or other groups. Citizens should have the right to defend themselves but those looking for trouble need to be denied the ability to cause that trouble as much as possible.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ReAlIzAtIoN
 


They wouldn't as the job of the Supreme court is to enforce the Constitution and to suppress laws that goes against it when they are challenged.

No matter if the entire supreme court is elected by liberals or conservatives they have an oath.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
That tells me that there are 4 Supreme Court Justices that need to be immediately removed from the bench for failure to consider, nay comprehend, the US Constitution on the most elementary of levels.


Don't forget that those 4 are the SAME four that voted against giving corporations the rights of individuals.


The SC has become totally partisan and worthless.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 
I see your point but Oaths don't really matter to a lot of the politicians in my opinion I mean look at George Bush jr.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


Well one thing is a politicrap whore and another the supreme court appointees.

But then again, even the supreme court is not exempt from pimps money.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The...the Constitution....it's....it's....

It's alive!




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 
Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.



Uh, an assault "weapon" by definition is a firearm capable of automatic fire.

You do know a semi auto is no more of an assault weapon than a rock or a pencil right?

Each and every gun control law on the books is in fact unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment has been mitigated by a corrupt and criminal government.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by brainwrek]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 
Could be true





I'm kinda ignorant to guns!


After reading this full article en.wikipedia.org...


your right! Sorry for my temporary ignorance.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by XxRagingxPandaxX]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
So basicly what there saying is "you idiots can have your guns, cause we gotz lasers!!!"

so you thought it was gonna be police coming and rounding people up.... but what if its a robot army with lasers?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I wonder how long it will take someone to challange New York's anti-gun laws with this ruling. California requires that you register all of your firearms with the state. Since they are already registered by the federal government is that law constituional? Looks like some interesting days to come.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
So basicly what there saying is "you idiots can have your guns, cause we gotz lasers!!!"

so you thought it was gonna be police coming and rounding people up.... but what if its a robot army with lasers?


Then we wield an army of people holding up giant mirrors.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 
Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.



Automatic weapons are legal in many of the states and every one they are are among the lowest crime rates.The states such as Illinois, NY, California, etc. that have much stricter gun laws and even outright bans like the one just overturned in Chicago in the OP have much higher crime rates despite gun bans and limits. They are living proof gun bans do not work!

The term "assault weapon" is another anti-gun rights propagandist cliche. The only difference between these types of weapons and supposed non-assault weapons are cosmetic period. All firearms are equally deadly in the hands of an evil person. So called assault weapons are rarely used in crimes as they are impractical to conceal and carry.

Laws banning weapons are a joke and never have and never will prevent criminals from obtaining any weapons they wish and using it for evil! And they have never ever prevented crime or lowered the crime rate. As George Carlin used to say its all bullshirt



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Touché mon ami

Regardless, there is an accountability lacking on the 2nd Amendment ruling. As for the other, I would like my corpri-ndividual bailout now please.


Slippery slopes for different folks (to borrow poorly from someone else's witticisms)



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Automatic weapons are legal in many of the states and every one they are are among the lowest crime rates.The states such as Illinois, NY, California, etc. that have much stricter gun laws and even outright bans like the one just overturned in Chicago in the OP have much higher crime rates despite gun bans and limits. They are living proof gun bans do not work!

The term "assault weapon" is another anti-gun rights propagandist cliche. The only difference between these types of weapons and supposed non-assault weapons are cosmetic period. All firearms are equally deadly in the hands of an evil person. So called assault weapons are rarely used in crimes as they are impractical to conceal and carry.


You hit the nail on the head with that statement. The majority of gun crime commited in the US are with handguns.
"Assault weapon" is just a trigger word used to evoke a fear response. Any weapon one uses be it a rock, a knife, a pencil, a baseball bat, a frying pan etc. is an "assault weapon"
These are not "assault weapons"
< br />
They lack a "selective fire switch".
yah
They look really cool. They are military style weapons, but at the end of the day they are no different than any other rifle on the shelf.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by azrael36]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by azrael36]
Trying to fix img link arrrrrg


[edit on 28-6-2010 by azrael36]
I give up!!! Friggn fraggn farkin grrrrr


[edit on 28-6-2010 by azrael36]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by azrael36]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by azrael36]
the last time I'm gonna try n fix this dang link! I promise


[edit on 28-6-2010 by azrael36]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

I believe these kind of regulations can work to keep assault weapons in the hands of collectors and make them prohibitive to obtain for the casual gun owner, if written properly and enforced fully.



What you are failing to understand and/or take into account is the "slippery slope" that is created whenever a ban is proposed for certain type of weapon. When the original "assault weapons" ban was in effect, it had all sorts of convoluted wording as to what exactly constituted an assault weapon, to the point where individual jurisdictions were deciding differently about the weapons.

The "slippery slope" occurs because once you ban the first type, it just got much easier to ban another, and then another, until they're all banned.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
So does this mean that Chicago can now be sued by anyone that had a legal and legitimate right to apply for a handgun license but were refused?

If for the last 28 years (28 years!!!) Chicago has been breaking the law by refusing handguns to legitimate citizens, then it seems possible to me.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


That's because you weren't in New Orleans during Katrina. Civilization collapses easily; plan accordingly.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by marg6043
 
I see your point but Oaths don't really matter to a lot of the politicians in my opinion I mean look at George Bush jr.



And now obama,

who also took the "protect and defend" oath ...





[edit on 6/28/2010 by centurion1211]



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join