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: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
while I am totally FOR gun ownership
I think we may be celebrating a lil too
early with the champagne.

What good is a gun gonna do you
if you can't breathe or eat or drink
from toxic rain, famine and tainted
water supplies???? Why fight the
populace with guns when they can
win by other means???

Some can't see the forest for the trees.

I really don't think the next revolution will
be using guns at all.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:41 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?


Laser robots? Well I've got to say I've never seen President Obama in a Cobra Commander helmet but if you've got evidence for a man-portable laser weapon I'd love to see it. I've always wanted one myself!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Just thought I'd throw this out:

Our rights aren't granted by the Constitution, it merely recognizes that we were born with those rights as human beings and that those rights are more important and have primacy above the powers it grants the federal government or reserves to the states.

The Second Amendment isn't about what's "necessary" it simply is the recognition that free citizens have an inherent right to bear arms that supersedes any government's powers to take them away.

It isn't about hunting, it isn't about sports, it isn't even about "a well regulated militia" - it is about an individual's inherent human right to defend himself and to defend his other God given rights, such as free speech, against anyone, especially an abusive and out of control federal government. Perhaps an American Theocracy for example?

(By the way, if I hear Obama say one more time when asked a 2ndA question "oh, I support hunting.." I'll scream.)

The other thing is the so-called "Assault Weapons" which came into the public consciousness via the Clinton's so-called "Assault Weapons" ban - which should have been called the "Sexy Gun" ban, because the criteria was so idiotic.

Believe me, any weapon pointed at you with intent to do you harm is definitely an assault weapon - including or an axe, tire iron, or a rock.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by mydarkpassenger]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
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.


No, when the US Supreme Court overturns a law it is not open to retroactive litigation. If it were imagine how many lawsuits there would have been after sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Somebody in Chicago is going to make some money with a gun shop!

Welcome back Chicago.

There is no way I wouldn't own and carry a gun in that city.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


I think the fact that 4 justices voted against the ruling tells us that the Supreme Court itself is a criminal institution.

The Supreme Court has no natural right to dictate what private property owners do with their property, including guns.

The entire circus is a sideshow from the fact that the Supreme Court has no authority to be ruling on firearms at all.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
It isn't about hunting, it isn't about sports, it isn't even about "a well regulated militia" - it is about an individual's inherent human right to defend himself and to defend his other God given rights, such as free speech, against anyone, especially an abusive and out of control federal government.

Well said. The second amendment is one of the main supporting pillars of the rest of the Bill of Rights. Take this away and there's no guarantee that your other rights won't be removed as well. So long as the right to bear arms remains, it's difficult to remove the other rights that we have in the United States.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
while I am totally FOR gun ownership
I think we may be celebrating a lil too
early with the champagne.

What good is a gun gonna do you
if you can't breathe or eat or drink
from toxic rain, famine and tainted
water supplies???? Why fight the
populace with guns when they can
win by other means???

Some can't see the forest for the trees.

I really don't think the next revolution will
be using guns at all.


One thing at a time, my friend. Victory of the defense of our (already agreed upon) Constitution is to bring us strength, which we need in order to use the said document to effect the further changes needed, no matter how long it takes us and etc.

None of that is possible peacefully without this document's integrity being able to withstand and continue through our changing times.

That is its glory, after all, and the reason we continue to benefit from the unique work of our founding families.

Its provisions are what make peaceful, positive change possible. As it has already, and for some time now.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Every time I see the phrase handgun license or just licensed gun it makes my feel angry. Not your use of the term but in general. The second amendment of the constitution is the only license I think we should have to concern ourselves with.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


What about the agreement Obama signed with the UN thats supposed to supersede US Law???



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
There is already a thread about this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Boomer1941
 
Can you give me a link? I have never heard of this!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
there are no liberals or conservatives in a foxhole when you are being shot at. i am a liberal that loves my country, the constitution, and knows how to use a weapon.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 
I completely agree, there are certain things that bring us together as a country, for example 911 on that day on that day there were no democrats or republicans, only citizens of the United States of America that wanted to bring justice to our attacker!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I am in shock that I am in agreement with Benevolent Heretic
That little sarcasm aside I am pleased that the ruling went the way it did. It's sad that society as a whole doesn't realize what guns can teach us. It is a resposability to own a firearm. Gun violence seems to stem from a irresponable culture. I had the pleasure today of going shooting with my father and fourteen year old cousin. It was my little cousins first time shooting a real gun. My father and I took about twenty minutes showing him how to handle the guns we had with us. After his first shot you could see how my cousin realized what he was holding in his hand. As any ATS member should know deny ignorance! If you never shot a firearm before try and see if you can find someone to teach you how to handle and fire a gun. Most gun owners tend to be very conscious of the price of carelessness. Going and shooting at a legitimate gun range can be one of the safest and most fun way to spend a afternoon!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I'm confused about how you all interpret the second amendment. It's pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms is in reference to a well-regulated militia, and only that. Unless we are each part of a "well-regulated" (and who does the regulating?) militia, then no rights are bestowed. I understand that the Supreme Court has ruled on this many times but we can all agree that the Court is as political an institution as anything else we have.

If the first part of the second amendment can be ignored like this, then the last part can be interpreted to mean all sorts of things as well: why can't "arms" mean that I might have a storehouse of mustard gas at my farm to defend against mobs coming to take my property? Why doesn't "arms" also mean shoulder fired missiles, to defend against an invasion of America by a foreign Air Force (surely the most likely sort of invasion, if any were to be likely at all)?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:21 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.



The question I think you need to ask yourself is how unnecessary are they if you happen to be farmer in Southern Arizona near the Mexican boarder?

Just because something is unnecessary for YOUR situation, where YOU live, and because YOU have no need for such a weapon does not mean that is the case for everyone. I myself, have no need for such a weapon at this time, however it would be comforting to know that should I need such a weapon, I will be able to get one.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:22 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.


Then you know nothing about firearms if you believe what you said.

The definition of Automatic weapons, are that they use the excess exhaust gas from a spent round, to eject that round and to load another. The correct statement is Fully Automatic guns versus semi-automatic guns, they are both automatics. Fully automatic means if you pull and hold the trigger the gun will continue to fire until the trigger is released or you run out of ammunition. These require a $200 Federal permit and an interview with the FBI to get one. Semi-auto means one shot every time the trigger is pulled. Trigger has to be released and pulled again in order to fire another round. Automatic guns have been in production since the early 1900's and make up probably 70% of the guns produced.

Assault weapons (an unfortunate choice of a name) are basically a hunting rifle's barrel and action put into a ruggedized and versatile stock. They are not more powerful or accurate than any other rifle of similar cartridge or barrel length. Many classical hunting rifles with wooden stocks have been replaced with the versatility of 'assault weapon' style stocks, grips and hand guards. Hunting rifles with 'assault weapon' features can be seen at www.dpmsinc.com... or AR15.com



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by apocalypsesound
 


I would suggest that you make yourself aware of the discussion at the time of the second amendments proposal and adoption by the early government of the US.

Here is a start: www.guncite.com...

Edit to post my favorite quote from the link above.

Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:

[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the Second Amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia

[edit on 28-6-2010 by wayouttheredude]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I don't mean to be a downer, but I think it's a shame when we think that it's a victory that we get to keep rights granted to us in the Constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join