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: 4
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
The Second Amendment has been eviscerated by this ruling.

It says that some regulation is "reasonable".

Wrong. Any law abiding citizen should be able to possess weapons of current military technology.

It says that the right is protected to have a gun in one's home for self defense.

Wrong! The Second Amendment is about the Militia and defense against tyranny. It is not about self defense in the home. That is a by product. Of course a Militia member would have a firearm in their house.

To return to the Republic we must return to the Militia. Through the Militia the seed for self reliance of communities is planted and grown.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
We'll all first kill off one another after the market crash, then the feds come in and promote the ones who survived.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Its like this- to bare arms is a right. This right means that a citizen should be able to posess the same arms that a average soldier carries on the feild, meaning they are militia. This includes hand guns since they are issued to the foot soldier.
For a real interesting read on all gunrights, i sugest all gun owners read UNINTENDED CONSQUENCES by john ross. You will start this book slow but by the end you will not be able to put it down. All gun laws are adressed in this book and should be required reading for all gun owners.
This in a constitutional win, hope more come from this supreme court.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I'm totally for the right to bear arms! There are good reasons why our Founding Fathers made sure we had the basic right to defend ourselves. Tyranny is one of them.

Astroved



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


No, an automatic weapon is not by definition an assault rifle. Legally, to be considered an assault rifle, it need only have a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, telescoping stock, and grenade launcher.

Being automatic does not even factor into the equation.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Might I point out this "restrictive right" of gun ownership by the Supremes was passed by a 4-5 margin...

No great victory here. Remember we have a "lady" about to be approved to the Supremes who is absolutely against any gun ownership. This ruling coluld be changed very quickly. Lock and Load?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 
As a gun owner, I agree with your post. I would like to see something done on the sales end. Over 75% of the guns used in crimes that can be traced by the police go back to less than 100 gun dealers out of 7000. The reason nothing is done about that is there are no U.S. attorneys investigating any of them so they can not request the records from ATF and give them to the FBI because of privacy concerns. They do not say whose privacy.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


do you even understand what an automatic gun is?
my s&w 457 pistol is an auto
my 9mm is an auto
should they be banned?
automatic means when when you fire a round another is AUTOMATICALLY chambered. it does not mean just spraying lead.
do some research on guns and you will learn some things.
also point blank range is not up close do some research on the that too



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
IMO there shouldn't be a ban on any types of guns. If the supreme court rules that US citizens can own guns then that's it, you cant say well you can own this but not that even though they are both guns. Look at it this way, anyone committing a crime will have automatic assault rifles and weapons like that regardless if they are legal or not. So if the criminals have those weapons why shouldn't non criminals be able to have those weapons if they choose too? only seems fair to keep the playing field equal. it makes a potential burglar think more about a home invasion knowing full well that homeowner may be waiting for him with the same weapons.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
ATS first attacks all the MSM.. and now you post a MSM news item... what more need I say..

Good for the gun loving people though..



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Don't need a gun here in Canada. I'm just as happy without one.
The Feds realize how many gun owners there is. There would be chaos if the government did take them away.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bloodWolf762
reply to post by brainwrek
 


No, an automatic weapon is not by definition an assault rifle. Legally, to be considered an assault rifle, it need only have a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, telescoping stock, and grenade launcher.

Being automatic does not even factor into the equation.


That is a new, and false, definition promoted by media and by gun grabbing politicians. The "assault rifle" was conceived and designed to be an automatic or select-fire rifle with a detachable magazine that chambers an intermediate cartridge.

The definition you are using was created by gun grabbers specifically so that they could convince people to be afraid of semi automatic rifles, and is not the true definition of the term.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Shrukin89
 


Isn't that special.

Canada is such a peaceful place, right? Go down to the G20 area a try walking down the peaceful street full of burning police cars and tear gas.





posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by merkaba93
The Second Amendment has been eviscerated by this ruling.

It says that some regulation is "reasonable".

Wrong. Any law abiding citizen should be able to possess weapons of current military technology.

It says that the right is protected to have a gun in one's home for self defense.

Wrong! The Second Amendment is about the Militia and defense against tyranny. It is not about self defense in the home. That is a by product. Of course a Militia member would have a firearm in their house.

To return to the Republic we must return to the Militia. Through the Militia the seed for self reliance of communities is planted and grown.



So does this just apply to the weapons systems or the entire systems packages? Could I just buy a Phalanx Cannon or could I purchase an entire Nimitz-Class aircraft carrier if I lived in the United States?

Or should I just go pick up a half-megaton thermonuclear weapon?

I'm sorry but this idea is just absolutely disturbing. The United States would be a nuclear wasteland within a year if you had your way.

On the issue of the militias, the key part you are missing is the fact that they are to be "well regulated" according to the United States Constitution.

According to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the federal government (specifically congress) is the entity in charge of the organizing, arming and discipline of the militia. This voids your entire point unless your gun was given to you by an act of congress.

The kind of militia you want is a private army, independent and against the government, and there is no provision for that in the United States Constitution at all.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


you wrote:
"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."

Your argument destroys itself. The amendment clearly states that the rights are retained by the people due to the necessity of a well-regulated militia. There are no other reasons given. You directed me to Gunsite.com where i read some hand-picked quotes, written by various lawyers over a great deal of time, as to what they believe the article actually meant. All the interpolation in the world does not change what is actually contained in the amendment.

And to address the broader conversation here, I cannot find another western country who has a rate of violence, nor a rate of incarceration, anywhere near as high as ours here in the United States. Is it a just a coincidence that we also have the highest rate of gun ownership in the Western world?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
This is a big win for citizens in protecting their rights. The NRA put their biggest and brightest legal stars into this battle. G*d bless Charlton Heston for making the NRA one of the most powerful lobbyists in DC. This basically assures that the NWO has a big problem in taking away any more rights. Fema will watch themselves when they are looking for citizens that they want to put in all those body bags that they bought..



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


i am actually pretty sure (atleast in florida) you don't need any special permits for fully automatic weapons. its more of a bluff than anything, since people think there is a big hassle with getting full auto guns, they just settle with an ar-15 or some other semi-auto quasi-military firearm.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by apocalypsesound
 


Your joking right? If this reference is not enough background and you feel it was hand picked by lawyers perhaps you should review the entire discussion of the federalist papers and the constitution concerning the right to keep and bear arms and then come back and discuss this topic as an informed observer of the history and constitutional law with regard to the second amendment.

A good source for this is: www.constitution.org...

If this does not do it for you then you are simply not paying attention or are in denial of both history and the law. I know that knowledge of history and law is a laborious task but it is well worth the effort. Again strictly because I liked the passage I will include an excerpt of my liking from the above linked article from constitution.org:




The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep and bear arms. If in fact this language creates a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily protect only against action by the state, and by definition a state cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belonging to the state by inserting it in a limitation of the state's own powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporaries of the framers did insert these words into several state constitutions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be infringed either by state or federal government and which must be protected against infringement by both.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


Gun possesion should be treated like every other commodity, regulated. Required training classes, psychological examination, definite regulation on storage (like all guns must be stored with a special lock to prevent misuse)

and to be patriotic, since government corrupt or not, we still face the same enemies, a paper signing your duties as an armed militia in a time of war in case of an invasion (sounds commy I know, but if people want to wave guns around id feel safer knowing that they declared the intruders the enemies and not just for personal safety so they can go around looting and raise anarchy,

because like it or not, illegal immigrants, gays, minorities, gov'ment, rich, poor etc,, we are all on the same team in the long run, and at least the way things are now, its better than anything other countries have to offer. And we have to learn to defend ourselves together first, work out our differences later


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by apocalypsesound
 


that isn't true. it doesn't say that people are only allowed guns so that they can form militias. it asserts that militias are nessisarry for a free state, and that the right of THE PEOPLE (not militias) to bear arms shall not be infringed.

i am for "reasonable" gun control. there comes a point where a normal american couldn't afford to pay for certain powerful weapons, such as rocket launchers, miniguns, mortars, etc. so the only people who could afford them are either VERY rich, or some crazy occult leader who tells his followers to get all the money they can together so they can get some serious firepower and go on a rampage. either way, very rich people could get them anyways, reguardless of laws, so being able to own such devestating weapons is more a threat to americans than it would be for their protection.

citizens SHOULD be able to purchase unclassified military weapons, provided they are sorted into different classes, all "small arms" are fair game. shotguns, rifles, special ammo, no rocket launchers, miniguns, grenades, explosives, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join